The Supreme Court has refused to hear Ghislaine Maxwell’s appeal, upholding her 20-year prison sentence for sex trafficking. Maxwell argued she should be shielded from prosecution due to a non-prosecution agreement Epstein secured in Florida, a claim rejected by lower courts. The Justice Department maintained that the agreement did not cover Maxwell, and the court agreed. Maxwell’s lawyer stated that they are disappointed, but will continue to pursue other avenues.
Read More
The Supreme Court rejected an appeal from Ghislaine Maxwell on Monday, declining to review her conviction for sex trafficking. Maxwell’s lawyers argued that a prior non-prosecution agreement also protected her from federal charges. The justices did not provide a reason for their decision, but the Trump administration had previously urged them to stay out of the case. The decision leaves Maxwell serving a 20-year prison sentence.
Read More
U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut issued a temporary restraining order blocking the deployment of 200 National Guard troops to Portland after the state and city sued to prevent the federalization. The judge cited constitutional concerns, arguing the president’s actions undermined Oregon’s sovereignty and blurred the lines between civil and military federal power, granting a temporary restraining order, which could be extended, based on a likelihood of success on the merits. The ruling stems from a memo ordering the National Guard’s federalization and deployment, which was also opposed by the Oregon governor, who stated there was no insurrection or threat warranting the troops. The Trump administration has appealed the ruling, which followed a similar court decision in California against the use of the National Guard, and the president has indicated interest in deploying troops to other cities as well.
Read More
Ketanji Brown Jackson, the Supreme Court’s newest justice, is quickly establishing herself as a powerful liberal voice, especially in her dissents. In a footnote of her dissent in Trump v. Casa, Jackson cited Ernst Fraenkel’s work on Nazi Germany’s dual legal system, drawing a parallel between the current legal landscape and unchecked executive power. This subtle yet striking comparison serves as a warning about the potential threats to the rule of law. Jackson’s dissents, notably in the face of conservative court decisions, are a consistent call for justice.
Read More
Second US appeals court rejects Trump’s order curtailing birthright citizenship. Well, isn’t that something? The second court of appeals has now tossed out Trump’s attempt to chip away at birthright citizenship. You know, the one enshrined in the 14th Amendment? This isn’t just a legal issue; it strikes at the very heart of who we are as Americans. It’s about the promise of equal protection under the law, a promise that’s been a cornerstone of our nation since the Civil War.
This whole situation is like watching a slow-motion train wreck. You know where it’s headed: potentially all the way to the Supreme Court.… Continue reading
The First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston has ruled that the Trump administration cannot withhold citizenship from children born to individuals in the country illegally or temporarily, solidifying the mounting legal setbacks for the president’s birthright order. This ruling marks the fifth federal court since June to either issue or uphold orders blocking the order, concluding that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their claims based on the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. The court upheld preliminary injunctions, which block the order that would have halted automatic citizenship for babies born to people in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. The case is expected to move quickly back to the Supreme Court, where the administration hopes to be vindicated.
Read More
US Supreme Court lets Trump strip temporary status from Venezuelan migrants, and it’s hard not to feel a wave of frustration washing over everything. It feels like we’re watching a very specific playbook in action, a playbook that prioritizes political maneuvering over the wellbeing of hundreds of thousands of people. We’re talking about individuals who, quite literally, followed the rules – they came here with legal status, seeking refuge from a crisis in their home country, and now face the threat of being sent back.
It’s chilling when you consider the scope of what’s at stake. This isn’t about targeting dangerous criminals; it’s about potentially labeling an entire group of people, legally residing in the country, as somehow problematic simply because of their immigration status.… Continue reading
In a controversial decision, the Supreme Court allowed Donald Trump to cancel $4 billion in foreign aid appropriated by Congress. The ruling, seemingly based on a “pocket rescission” strategy, granted Trump the ability to withhold funds until they expired, effectively giving him a line-item veto. This decision, reached through the shadow docket, shifts power from the legislative to the executive branch. The Court’s justification focused on the president’s authority over foreign affairs outweighing Congress’ spending control, a move that could lead to a president impounding any funds they dislike, undermining the separation of powers.
Read More
The presidential notice declares the United States is in a noninternational armed conflict with designated terrorist organizations, though specific groups are not named. This broad classification allows the administration to continue unilateral actions against perceived threats. Critics point out that this interpretation stretches international law and could be used to justify violence against loosely organized groups. Experts like Brian Finucane suggest the lack of clarity regarding the targeted groups’ organization creates legal issues.
Read More
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case concerning Hawaii’s law requiring express permission from private property owners for individuals to carry guns, potentially impacting gun carry rights in various public spaces. This decision follows a 2022 Supreme Court ruling that expanded access to guns, and Hawaii’s law, enacted in response, reverses the prior requirement that property owners explicitly prohibit guns. The case stems from a challenge by gun owners who argue the law infringes on their right to carry in public, with the government’s argument emphasizing the unique restriction on guns compared to other items. The Court’s decision will hinge on historical precedent as outlined in its prior ruling, and could have significant implications for “sensitive place” restrictions on guns.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood