White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt referenced President Trump’s suggestion to deport violent U.S. citizens, conditionally stating it must be legal, a point Justice Sotomayor underscored in a dissenting opinion regarding potential unlawful deportations without judicial review. This concern is further highlighted by the Abrego Garcia case, where the government resists correcting a citizen’s erroneous deportation despite admitting error. Constitutional scholars warn of the executive branch’s unchecked power if this position prevails, impacting the scope of presidential authority. The upcoming Supreme Court decision in Abrego Garcia’s case will significantly determine the extent of this power.
Read More
The Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in the case challenging New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) leaves in place lower court injunctions blocking the law’s restrictions on carrying firearms in houses of worship. This is a victory for plaintiffs like Rev. Dr. Jimmie Hardaway Jr., who argued the ban infringed on Second Amendment rights and jeopardized congregational safety. While the broader challenge to the CCIA continues, the ruling allows armed congregants to continue carrying firearms in churches. Governor Hochul supports the state’s gun laws, while Second Amendment advocates vow to continue their legal fight.
Read More
The Supreme Court stayed a lower court order requiring the reinstatement of approximately 16,000 federal employees fired by the Trump administration, dissenting Justices Sotomayor and Jackson noted. The Court’s decision focused on the lack of standing of the nonprofit groups bringing the suit, leaving the claims of labor unions potentially open for further litigation. A similar, but distinct, Maryland ruling requiring administrative leave for affected employees remains in effect. The affected agencies include the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Defense, Energy, Interior, Agriculture, and Treasury.
Read More
Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s dissent in a 5-4 Supreme Court decision regarding the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged gang members sparked significant backlash from conservative commentators and Trump supporters. Barrett sided with the Court’s three liberal justices, opposing the majority’s decision allowing the deportations to proceed. While the majority opinion ultimately mandated due process for those facing deportation, conservative criticism focused on Barrett’s perceived betrayal of President Trump and her perceived liberal leanings. The case now returns to a lower court for further proceedings.
Read More
Justice Jackson issued a scathing dissent against the Supreme Court’s decision to utilize the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan migrants. The ruling, made without oral arguments or briefs via the “shadow docket,” allows the deportation of migrants to a notoriously harsh prison based on unsubstantiated claims of gang affiliation. Jackson argues this sets a dangerous precedent, echoing the flawed Korematsu decision, and criticizes the lack of transparency and deliberation in the court’s emergency rulings. She contends the Court’s hasty decision, lacking proper review, demonstrates a troubling pattern of disregarding due process.
Read More
The Trump administration, in a Supreme Court brief, argues it can deport anyone—citizen or immigrant—to a foreign country without due process and deny them all constitutional rights. This claim, made in the case of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, wrongly deported to El Salvador despite having protected status, asserts the government’s inability to retrieve individuals held in foreign prisons, even if the deportation was an error. The administration contends that federal courts lack jurisdiction over individuals held abroad at the government’s request, even though the US pays for their detention. This unprecedented assertion, if accepted, would effectively allow the government to create overseas black sites from which individuals could be permanently disappeared, undermining fundamental due process protections for all.
Read More
Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily stayed a midnight deadline for the Trump administration to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man mistakenly deported to a dangerous El Salvadoran prison. The Justice Department argued that Judge Paula Xinis’ order overstepped her authority, claiming the administration lacked the means to retrieve Abrego Garcia from a foreign sovereign’s custody. While the administration admitted the deportation was an error, they contested the court’s injunction, framing it as part of a broader effort to impede the President’s agenda. The case is further complicated by a separate Supreme Court appeal concerning the deportation of Venezuelan migrants to the same prison.
Read More
Elon Musk’s America PAC altered a video of a $1 million check recipient, removing the word “vote” after the recipient linked receiving the money to voting in the Wisconsin election. This action followed a Wisconsin Supreme Court race where the candidate Musk supported lost, despite his attempt to incentivize voting through large cash prizes. The altered video aimed to avoid potential legal repercussions under Wisconsin’s election bribery laws, which prohibit paying individuals to vote. Musk later revised his own statements about the giveaway to further distance himself from accusations of illegal inducement.
Read More
The Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision temporarily blocking the Biden administration’s freeze on millions in federal grants for teacher shortages, representing the administration’s first high court victory since January. The court reasoned that the states possessed sufficient funds to maintain their programs while litigation continued, allowing recovery of wrongfully withheld funds later. However, the decision was narrow, with dissenting justices highlighting the significant harm caused to states and questioning the court’s handling of a temporary restraining order. The ruling could have broader implications for future challenges to Trump administration policies. The case centers around allegations that grant recipients engaged in diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, prompting the administration to freeze the funds.
Read More
Despite spending $25 million to support conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Brad Schimel, Elon Musk’s preferred candidate lost to liberal Susan Crawford. Musk attempted to frame the outcome as a victory due to the passage of a voter ID amendment, already existing state law, minimizing his substantial financial investment’s failure. This prompted widespread online mockery, highlighting the disconnect between Musk’s significant spending and his chosen candidate’s defeat. Crawford’s win maintains a liberal majority on the court, impacting crucial cases on abortion access, voting rights, and redistricting.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker