Jimmy Kimmel Has Supreme Court Precedent on His Side, or at Least, He Did
Jimmy Kimmel has Supreme Court precedent on his side, specifically referencing the 1963 case *Bantam Books v. Sullivan*. This pivotal ruling established a clear boundary: governmental entities cannot employ indirect methods to suppress constitutionally protected speech. The core of this precedent rests on the idea that the government cannot coerce or intimidate private parties into censoring others. The key question is whether the government official’s actions could reasonably be understood as a threat of adverse consequences aimed at coercing a private party to punish or suppress someone else’s speech on the government’s behalf.… Continue reading
The Trump administration has petitioned the Supreme Court for an emergency order to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve’s board of governors. This action follows a failed attempt by the administration to oust Cook, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, and is part of a larger effort to reshape the Fed. The legal challenge is unprecedented, as no president has previously fired a sitting Fed governor. The administration argues that Cook’s alleged actions regarding mortgage rates raise concerns about her trustworthiness and ability to manage interest rates, though she denies any wrongdoing and has not been charged with a crime.
Read More
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor emphasized the importance of civic involvement and education during a recent speech. She questioned the public’s understanding of fundamental American principles, including the distinction between a president and a monarch. Sotomayor expressed concern over a lack of knowledge regarding the functions of the branches of government, advocating for more comprehensive civic education to address this deficit. While the justice did not directly address President Trump, her remarks touched on themes relevant to ongoing debates about the balance of power within the executive branch.
Read More
President Donald Trump is seeking unprecedented power over U.S. fiscal and monetary policy through several cases before the Supreme Court. One case concerns Trump’s tariffs, which he claims are valid without Congressional approval, potentially raising trillions in new taxes. Another case involves Trump’s ability to impound funds, essentially refusing to spend money appropriated by Congress. Finally, Trump is attempting to gain the power to fire a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors. If Trump is successful in these cases, he could gain dictatorial control over the U.S. economy.
Read More
Trump administration unlawfully directed mass worker terminations, judge rules. It’s pretty astounding, isn’t it? A federal judge has come out and plainly stated that the Trump administration, during its time in office, acted unlawfully by ordering the mass firing of thousands of federal workers. And the kicker? Despite this clear violation of the law, the judge didn’t actually order the workers to be reinstated. The whole thing just highlights the complex and frustrating dance that can sometimes play out in the legal system, especially when dealing with politically charged issues.
The judge, U.S. District Judge William Alsup, based his decision on a previous ruling, confirming his preliminary stance that the U.S.… Continue reading
A majority of Brazil’s Supreme Court judges have voted to convict former President Jair Bolsonaro of plotting a military coup, potentially resulting in a lengthy prison sentence. Justice Cármen Lúcia Antunes Rocha ruled Bolsonaro guilty of attempting to cling to power after losing the 2022 election. Two other judges, Alexandre de Moraes and Flávio Dino, also found him guilty of leading a criminal organization that sought to overthrow Brazilian democracy. The former president’s sentence is expected to be determined after the remaining judge casts his vote, with a possible sentence up to 43 years.
Read More
In a recent Supreme Court ruling, Justice Kavanaugh suggested that Americans roughed up by ICE agents can sue in federal court. However, civil rights attorneys are pushing back, noting the court’s conservative majority has made such cases difficult to win. The court has limited the ability to sue federal law enforcement for excessive force claims in prior decisions, including border incidents. Justice Sotomayor dissented, arguing the ruling allows targeting of Latinos.
Read More
The Supreme Court has agreed to expedite a case concerning President Trump’s authority to impose broad tariffs, with arguments scheduled for November. The case challenges the legality of these tariffs, which were implemented using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). A federal appeals court previously found the tariffs were illegally implemented, potentially leading to refunds. The outcome of the Supreme Court’s decision could have significant implications, potentially setting clearer boundaries on presidential trade actions and impacting the government’s ability to collect duties.
Read More
The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, has allowed the Trump administration to use racial profiling in its immigration raids, overturning an injunction against targeting Latinos. Justice Sotomayor dissented, warning of the unconstitutional implications and potential for violence against Latinos, including U.S. citizens. This decision, made without explanation, impacts the “Operation at Large” in Los Angeles, which targeted individuals based on their ethnicity, language, and work, thereby violating Fourth Amendment protections. The court’s silence and Kavanaugh’s misrepresentation of the situation highlights the far-reaching consequences for those affected by these raids.
Read More
The Supreme Court has temporarily allowed President Trump to fire a Federal Trade Commission member, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, despite a law meant to restrict the White House’s control over the agency. The court blocked a lower court’s ruling that reinstated Slaughter while the case continues, signaling the likelihood of granting the president broader firing authority. This action directly challenges a 1935 Supreme Court precedent limiting the president’s ability to remove FTC commissioners without cause, a restriction meant to protect the agency from political pressure. The Trump administration argues such restrictions unlawfully limit presidential power as defined by the Constitution.
Read More
Matt Underwood 
John Q. Hosedrinker