Despite being appointed by President Trump to overturn Roe v. Wade, Justice Amy Coney Barrett initially opposed hearing the Dobbs case. Although she ultimately cast the deciding vote to overturn Roe, her voting record reveals a less partisan approach than expected by her conservative supporters, frequently siding with liberal justices on Trump administration matters. This has led to friction with the court’s most conservative wing, with Barrett sometimes issuing concurring opinions that diverge from her colleagues’ reasoning. Her actions, including recusal in a conflict-of-interest case, demonstrate a commitment to judicial process over partisan politics.
Read More
A Reuters/Ipsos poll reveals deep partisan divisions regarding the Supreme Court’s perceived political neutrality, with only 20% of respondents believing it to be unbiased. The Court’s upcoming rulings on key issues, including transgender healthcare bans, birthright citizenship, and online pornography restrictions, further highlight this stark partisan divide, reflecting already declining public approval. While support for restricting minors’ access to pornography enjoys broad bipartisan backing, opinions on the other issues are sharply split along party lines, with Republicans generally favoring stricter measures and Democrats exhibiting significant opposition. This polarization underscores the lack of public trust in the Court’s impartiality.
Read More
The Supreme Court unanimously reversed a lower court ruling dismissing a lawsuit against the federal government stemming from a wrongful FBI raid. The Court found the lower court incorrectly applied the Supremacy Clause, clarifying that a federal law allows lawsuits based on state tort law in cases like this. The case, involving an Atlanta family traumatized by a 2017 raid, will now proceed, allowing the 11th Circuit to consider the government’s liability for law enforcement’s mistakes. This decision potentially broadens legal avenues for accountability in cases of mistaken police raids.
Read More
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled to allow the Martin family’s lawsuit against the FBI to proceed, reversing lower court decisions that had dismissed the case. The Court rejected the appeals court’s interpretation of the Federal Tort Claims Act and the Supremacy Clause, clarifying that the Act’s exception for law enforcement actions should not be narrowly construed to shield the government from liability. While the Court did limit the scope of the “law enforcement proviso,” it ultimately paved the way for the family to pursue their claim for damages resulting from the FBI’s wrongful raid. This decision stems from a 2017 incident where the FBI mistakenly raided the Martin family home, causing significant distress and damages.
Read More
The Supreme Court temporarily blocked lower court orders compelling the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to release records and allow depositions to a government watchdog group. The Court found the lower court’s discovery order insufficiently tailored, citing separation of powers concerns regarding internal executive branch communications. The case centers on whether DOGE, a presidential advisory body, is subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a matter the Supreme Court did not address directly this time. The case was remanded to the appeals court for further proceedings. The dispute highlights the tension between executive branch confidentiality and public transparency regarding presidential advisory bodies.
Read More
The Trump administration seeks Supreme Court approval to circumvent the Convention Against Torture, arguing a loophole allows deportation to undisclosed countries, even if torture is likely. This tactic bypasses established procedures where immigrants can contest deportation to countries posing a credible threat of torture. The administration claims this applies even to those already deemed removable, ignoring existing legal protections and due process. The case hinges on jurisdictional arguments, with the administration asserting that courts lack the authority to review this practice, potentially leaving affected immigrants without any judicial recourse.
Read More
The Supreme Court issued a ruling allowing the Department of Government Efficiency access to sensitive Social Security Administration data, despite dissent from the Court’s Democratic justices. This decision, though perhaps predictable given precedent regarding executive branch data management, highlights the Court’s increasing use of the shadow docket to expedite cases brought by the Trump administration. Justice Jackson’s dissent criticizes the Court’s apparent abandonment of the “irreparable harm” requirement for granting emergency relief, particularly when compared to its treatment of similar requests from the Biden administration. This disparity suggests a potential double standard in the application of shadow docket rules based on the political affiliation of the involved administration.
Read More
The Supreme Court unanimously reversed a lower court ruling dismissing Marlean Ames’ reverse discrimination lawsuit against her employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services. The Court found that a stricter evidentiary standard applied to majority-group plaintiffs, requiring proof of “background circumstances,” is inconsistent with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This decision eliminates this heightened burden for reverse discrimination claims in several federal appellate court jurisdictions. The case was remanded for further proceedings, effectively making it easier to pursue such claims in those jurisdictions. Justice Thomas, in a concurring opinion, criticized the discriminatory nature of the “background circumstances” rule.
Read More
The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed Mexico’s $10 billion lawsuit against U.S. gun manufacturers, siding with the manufacturers’ argument that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) shields them from liability. Mexico alleged the manufacturers knowingly aided drug cartels by selling firearms designed to appeal to them and ignoring sales to known cartel intermediaries. The Court’s decision is a significant setback for gun control advocates who viewed the lawsuit as a crucial step in holding manufacturers accountable for gun violence. This ruling reinforces the PLCAA’s broad protection for gun manufacturers against civil lawsuits stemming from the criminal misuse of their products.
Read More
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court dismissed Mexico’s lawsuit against U.S. firearms manufacturers, citing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005. Justice Kagan’s opinion acknowledged the severity of gun violence but found Mexico’s claims of aiding and abetting insufficient to overcome the Act’s liability protections. The lawsuit, seeking $10 billion in damages, alleged that manufacturers knowingly facilitated the illegal sale of firearms recovered at Mexican crime scenes. The Court’s ruling reverses a lower court decision and upholds the immunity granted to gun manufacturers under the federal law.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker