A recent Gallup poll reveals that a record-high 43% of Americans perceive the U.S. Supreme Court as “too conservative.” This shift in public opinion coincides with the court’s conservative majority, which has ruled in favor of the Trump administration on numerous key issues and the Court’s approval rating has slipped in recent years. The poll also highlights that 42% of the cases last term were decided unanimously, a figure that has decreased over the last few years. The Supreme Court is set to begin its new session with the first argument scheduled for October 6th.
Read More
The Supreme Court has allowed Lisa Cook to remain as a Federal Reserve governor for now, declining to act on the Trump administration’s effort to immediately remove her from the central bank. The court will hear arguments in January regarding Trump’s attempt to force Cook off the Fed board and will consider whether to block a lower-court ruling in Cook’s favor. This case stems from Trump’s unprecedented bid to reshape the Fed board and stems from accusations of mortgage fraud against Cook, while a related case involving Trump’s firings of other federal officials is also being heard. Cook, who denies any wrongdoing, will be able to participate in the remaining two Fed meetings in 2025.
Read More
Recent polling data reveals a growing perception among Americans that the Supreme Court is too conservative, reaching a new high of 43%. This shift is primarily driven by increasing dissatisfaction among Independents and Democrats, mirroring a trend observed since the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett. Simultaneously, the court’s approval rating has become highly polarized, with a significant divide between Republicans and Democrats, and public confidence in the federal judiciary has dipped to near-record lows.
Read More
Justice Clarence Thomas recently stated that settled legal precedent should not be treated as “gospel,” suggesting some decisions may be based on questionable foundations. He criticized the court’s adherence to precedent, advocating for a re-evaluation of “stare decisis.” Thomas’s remarks come before the Supreme Court’s new term and follow the overturning of Roe v. Wade, where he also expressed a desire to reconsider other substantive due process precedents. This stance reflects a broader conservative effort to dismantle precedents related to civil liberties and social progress.
Read More
Speaking at the Catholic University of America, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas questioned the infallibility of settled legal precedent, suggesting some rulings may lack a strong foundation. Thomas, part of the court’s conservative majority, emphasized that precedent should be based on more than just theoretical underpinnings and respectful of legal tradition. He further stated that he feels no obligation to uphold a precedent if it doesn’t make sense. This perspective comes as the court is poised to address significant cases, potentially including a challenge to the Obergefell decision legalizing same-sex marriage.
Read More
Justice Clarence Thomas, during a recent appearance, argued that the Supreme Court should critically re-evaluate established legal precedents, implying they are not absolute. Thomas used a metaphor to criticize his colleagues for blindly following precedent. His remarks come as the Supreme Court prepares to address cases that could potentially overturn landmark decisions, including the legalization of same-sex marriage and key provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Thomas’s views reflect his long-standing desire to revisit significant Supreme Court rulings, particularly given the current conservative majority, despite the Court’s overall reluctance to overturn past decisions.
Read More
The Trump administration has appealed to the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of the president’s executive order regarding birthright citizenship, arguing that the long-held understanding of the 14th Amendment is “mistaken.” This appeal follows lower court rulings that have blocked the policy, citing the Constitution and precedent, including the case of *US v. Wong Kim Ark*. The administration contends the policy is crucial for border security, asserting that American citizenship should only be granted to those lawfully entitled. The ACLU, which has been involved in lawsuits against the order, has voiced opposition, calling the order illegal.
Read More
The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of an executive order that would end birthright citizenship, marking the second time this year the issue has been brought before the justices. The administration’s appeal argues that the long-held understanding of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to those born in the U.S., is “mistaken.” The order was blocked by lower courts, with the administration now seeking a final ruling to resolve the issue. The executive order, signed in January, stated that the federal government will not recognize the U.S. citizenship of children born on American soil to parents who were in the country unlawfully or temporarily.
Read More
The Supreme Court has effectively given the green light to Donald Trump’s consolidation of power, allowing the illegal firing of a Federal Trade Commissioner by a 6-3 vote, and setting the stage to overturn a 90-year-old precedent. This decision, made via the shadow docket, lacks public explanation and signals the court’s intent to restructure the federal government by transferring power to the White House. The Court’s actions aim to dismantle the independence of agencies like the FTC, enabling the President to exert political influence and control over enforcement of federal law. This move raises concerns that the Supreme Court is dismantling the checks and balances that separate democracy from dictatorship.
Read More
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court has allowed President Trump to fire Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter, sparking a dissent from Justice Elena Kagan who accused the court of overriding Congress to grant the president sweeping new powers over independent agencies. This decision signals the conservative majority’s potential willingness to overturn a 1935 precedent limiting presidential removals, specifically Humphrey’s Executor. The court’s actions have repeatedly cleared firings that Congress explicitly prohibited, thus shifting control of key regulatory agencies to the president. Arguments over the matter are expected in December, where the court will determine whether Trump can fire board members for any reason as he seeks to implement his agenda.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker