The Trump administration has requested the Supreme Court to stay a federal judge’s order that restricted immigration agents in Los Angeles from stopping individuals based on factors like “apparent ethnicity” and language. This case centers on whether immigration agents can use such characteristics as part of the “reasonable suspicion” standard for detentions. The litigation stems from arrests at a bus stop in June, leading to a temporary restraining order by a district judge, which was then unsuccessfully challenged in the 9th Circuit. The Supreme Court is now considering whether to allow agents to continue using these factors while the lawsuit proceeds.
Read More
President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Monday prohibiting the burning of the American flag, despite the Supreme Court’s precedent in Texas v. Johnson that deems it protected symbolic speech. While acknowledging the court’s ruling, Trump asserted that flag burning incites violence and riots. The order would impose a one-year jail sentence for those who violate the ban. Newsweek reached out to the Supreme Court for comment.
Read More
A federal judge has mandated that Alabama lawmakers redraw state Senate districts, citing a violation of the Voting Rights Act due to the dilution of Black voters’ influence in the Montgomery area. The judge ordered the creation of a new district in Montgomery where Black voters would have a majority or close to it, barring the use of the current map in the 2026 elections. This ruling stems from a 2021 lawsuit alleging the packing and extraction of Black voters to diminish their electoral strength in Montgomery, although no violation was found in Huntsville. The NAACP, along with other groups, brought the lawsuit, and while celebrating the win, continue to seek more comprehensive changes.
Read More
In a recent, highly complex Supreme Court case, *National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association*, the justices issued an obscure order regarding the Trump administration’s cancellation of public health grants, many of which were for critical research projects. The central issue revolved around a jurisdictional dispute: which court should hear the case, the district court or the Court of Federal Claims? A fractured court, with no clear majority, ultimately resulted in a split decision where the district court was the proper venue for some parts of the case and the claims court was the venue for others. This complex ruling, as Justice Jackson points out, appears to be designed to obstruct the rule of law, ensuring that the administration’s actions will remain unchallenged.
Read More
The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration, allowing the National Institutes of Health to cut $783 million in research funding as part of a push to reduce federal diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. The 5-4 decision, however, blocked the administration’s broader anti-DEI directive from being used for future funding cuts. The ruling allows the administration to proceed with grant cancellations while a lawsuit continues, while plaintiffs argue the decision harms public health. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, criticizing the outcome and the court’s use of emergency appeals.
Read More
In a Supreme Court case regarding President Trump’s cancellation of NIH grants, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson sharply criticized the conservative justices for their decision, labeling it as “Calvinball jurisprudence.” Jackson argued that the court’s ruling, which forces plaintiffs to pursue a complex legal process for monetary damages, effectively neuters judicial review and favors the Trump administration. This decision, according to Jackson, allows the cancellation of hundreds of millions of dollars in grants without providing a clear path for plaintiffs to seek complete relief. Jackson accused her conservative colleagues of making up the rules as they go, prioritizing political outcomes over established legal principles.
Read More
In the past few months, the Supreme Court, heavily influenced by Trump’s appointments, has issued a series of rulings, largely through the “shadow docket,” that have greatly benefited the former president, including granting him 18 straight victories. These decisions have allowed Trump to pursue his agenda and potentially causing immense suffering to millions. Critics, including prominent legal scholars, argue that Chief Justice John Roberts is overseeing the undermining of the rule of law. The current actions have led many, including legal scholars, to fear for the future of the court.
Read More
Hillary Clinton: Supreme Court ‘will do to gay marriage what they did to abortion’ is a statement that has ignited a flurry of discussion and concern, and it’s not difficult to see why. The core of the worry, echoed by many, is that the current conservative majority on the Supreme Court is poised to revisit the legal protections afforded to same-sex marriage, potentially dismantling the rights that were secured by the *Obergefell v. Hodges* ruling in 2015. This fear stems from the court’s recent actions, particularly the overturning of *Roe v. Wade*, which has set a precedent for re-evaluating established rights.… Continue reading
President Donald Trump has increasingly justified his policies by invoking national security, leading to a push for broad executive powers, specifically when stripping protections from government worker unions. This strategy is meant to use emergency powers to consolidate unitary control, sidestepping judicial review by appealing to long-standing deference principles. However, courts have shown varying degrees of resistance to this, and, while some judges have deferred to the administration’s claims, others have pushed back. These legal battles are ongoing and are likely to reach the Supreme Court, which has a history of deferring to the executive branch on national security matters.
Read More
**Abolish the Senate. End the Electoral College. Pack the Court.**
It’s time to have a serious look at how we govern ourselves. The call to abolish the Senate isn’t a radical one if we truly believe in democratic ideals. The Senate, as it currently functions, is an outdated vestige designed to appease the South, and its structure fundamentally undermines the principle of one person, one vote. If we’re aiming for a true democracy, a legislative body that gives equal weight to every citizen is non-negotiable. Now, that doesn’t mean it’s a simple process. Any such change necessitates a constitutional overhaul, but in contemplating this path, we might also consider other crucial reforms.… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood