The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration, allowing the National Institutes of Health to cut $783 million in research funding as part of a push to reduce federal diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. The 5-4 decision, however, blocked the administration’s broader anti-DEI directive from being used for future funding cuts. The ruling allows the administration to proceed with grant cancellations while a lawsuit continues, while plaintiffs argue the decision harms public health. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, criticizing the outcome and the court’s use of emergency appeals.
Read More
In a Supreme Court case regarding President Trump’s cancellation of NIH grants, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson sharply criticized the conservative justices for their decision, labeling it as “Calvinball jurisprudence.” Jackson argued that the court’s ruling, which forces plaintiffs to pursue a complex legal process for monetary damages, effectively neuters judicial review and favors the Trump administration. This decision, according to Jackson, allows the cancellation of hundreds of millions of dollars in grants without providing a clear path for plaintiffs to seek complete relief. Jackson accused her conservative colleagues of making up the rules as they go, prioritizing political outcomes over established legal principles.
Read More
In the past few months, the Supreme Court, heavily influenced by Trump’s appointments, has issued a series of rulings, largely through the “shadow docket,” that have greatly benefited the former president, including granting him 18 straight victories. These decisions have allowed Trump to pursue his agenda and potentially causing immense suffering to millions. Critics, including prominent legal scholars, argue that Chief Justice John Roberts is overseeing the undermining of the rule of law. The current actions have led many, including legal scholars, to fear for the future of the court.
Read More
Hillary Clinton: Supreme Court ‘will do to gay marriage what they did to abortion’ is a statement that has ignited a flurry of discussion and concern, and it’s not difficult to see why. The core of the worry, echoed by many, is that the current conservative majority on the Supreme Court is poised to revisit the legal protections afforded to same-sex marriage, potentially dismantling the rights that were secured by the *Obergefell v. Hodges* ruling in 2015. This fear stems from the court’s recent actions, particularly the overturning of *Roe v. Wade*, which has set a precedent for re-evaluating established rights.… Continue reading
President Donald Trump has increasingly justified his policies by invoking national security, leading to a push for broad executive powers, specifically when stripping protections from government worker unions. This strategy is meant to use emergency powers to consolidate unitary control, sidestepping judicial review by appealing to long-standing deference principles. However, courts have shown varying degrees of resistance to this, and, while some judges have deferred to the administration’s claims, others have pushed back. These legal battles are ongoing and are likely to reach the Supreme Court, which has a history of deferring to the executive branch on national security matters.
Read More
**Abolish the Senate. End the Electoral College. Pack the Court.**
It’s time to have a serious look at how we govern ourselves. The call to abolish the Senate isn’t a radical one if we truly believe in democratic ideals. The Senate, as it currently functions, is an outdated vestige designed to appease the South, and its structure fundamentally undermines the principle of one person, one vote. If we’re aiming for a true democracy, a legislative body that gives equal weight to every citizen is non-negotiable. Now, that doesn’t mean it’s a simple process. Any such change necessitates a constitutional overhaul, but in contemplating this path, we might also consider other crucial reforms.… Continue reading
A California man and former Trump voter, Brian Gavidia, was detained by immigration agents during a federal operation, leading him to believe he was targeted due to his race. Gavidia, who is now part of a lawsuit challenging immigration enforcement tactics, recounted how he was pushed against a wall and questioned about his citizenship. Department of Homeland Security officials maintain that such allegations of targeting are false, stating that enforcement operations are highly targeted and based on legal status. The case is now before the U.S. Supreme Court, which will decide the fate of restrictions limiting broad-based immigration enforcement in Los Angeles.
Read More
Supreme Court formally asked to overturn landmark same-sex marriage ruling.
It’s honestly hard to know where to begin with this latest development: the Supreme Court being formally asked to overturn the landmark same-sex marriage ruling in *Obergefell v. Hodges*. It feels like a punch to the gut, even though many of us saw this coming from a mile away. The news immediately brings to mind the name of Kim Davis, and not for good reasons. She’s back in the spotlight, and it seems her arguments are echoing those of others who want to roll back the clock on marriage equality. It’s disheartening to see.… Continue reading
The Supreme Court formally faces a new challenge: an appeal to overturn the landmark ruling that legalized same-sex marriage. And the person spearheading this effort is Kim Davis, the former county clerk who famously refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. It’s a situation that has reignited old debates and stirred up a lot of strong feelings on all sides.
The central argument Davis is putting forth is based on religious freedom. She asserts that her First Amendment right to practice her religion should shield her from personal liability for refusing to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. This is a complex legal argument, and it brings up a fundamental tension between religious freedom and the principle of equal treatment under the law.… Continue reading
Supreme Court approval rating has recently plummeted, hitting an all-time low, and the question on everyone’s mind is: What caused this dramatic shift? Well, it seems the answer, or rather, the multitude of answers, are staring us right in the face. It appears that the public is increasingly seeing the court as a partisan entity, driven by ideology rather than impartial legal principles. When rulings consistently favor one side of the political spectrum, especially when these decisions seem to contradict established precedents or even a straightforward reading of the law, public trust erodes.
The more the court makes what appear to be politically motivated decisions, the more its standing declines, potentially emboldening future administrations to disregard their rulings, and the very fabric of the rule of law begins to unravel.… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood