In a recent dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the Trump administration’s handling of immigration matters, accusing the court of “rewarding lawlessness” by supporting the administration’s emergency appeal to deport migrants. The dissent, joined by the court’s other liberals, specifically addressed the administration’s attempts to deport migrants to countries like South Sudan with minimal notice, despite lower court injunctions. Sotomayor argued that the government’s behavior threatened the rule of law by openly flouting court orders and repeatedly seeking relief from the Supreme Court on the emergency docket. This is the tenth time the court has granted a request from Trump on the emergency docket.
Read More
In a recent order, Republican justices on the Supreme Court ruled that President Trump may effectively bypass laws and treaties protecting immigrants from torture. This temporary order allows the administration to send immigrants to potentially dangerous countries while the *D.V.D.* case is litigated. The administration appears to have exploited a loophole, attempting to deport individuals to countries, such as South Sudan and Libya, where they face a high risk of torture without providing new hearings. Justice Sotomayor dissented, highlighting the potential for a deadly trap, as the administration seems to be intentionally selecting unsafe destinations after immigration hearings have already been completed.
Read More
US Supreme Court lifts limits on deporting migrants to countries not their own, and it’s hard not to feel like things have taken a very dark turn. It’s difficult to process this decision, and the implications it carries are chilling. To put it plainly, this ruling essentially allows the deportation of migrants to countries that aren’t their own, bypassing the established rules of what “deportation” has traditionally meant. It’s no longer just a matter of sending someone back to their country of origin; it now encompasses the ability to relocate them to entirely different nations.
The immediate concern that springs to mind is the potential for gross abuses of power.… Continue reading
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal of Damon Landor, a former Louisiana inmate whose dreadlocks were forcibly shaved by prison guards, allegedly violating his religious beliefs as a Rastafarian. Landor sought damages under a federal law protecting prisoners’ religious rights, but lower courts dismissed the case, citing the law’s limitations on monetary claims. The Supreme Court will now review the appellate ruling, considering arguments that align with a previous decision concerning religious freedom under a similar statute. The case, *Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections*, will be argued in the fall.
Read More
Justice Jackson’s dissenting opinion sharply criticizes the Supreme Court’s 7-2 ruling favoring fuel producers challenging California’s vehicle emission regulations, arguing the decision favors “moneyed interests” and harms the court’s reputation. She contends the court’s application of legal standing is inconsistent, granting relief to wealthy plaintiffs while denying it to less powerful ones, potentially aiding future attacks on the Clean Air Act. Justice Kavanaugh refuted these claims, citing examples where liberal justices found against similarly situated plaintiffs. However, the practical impact of the ruling is currently limited due to recent legislative action.
Read More
A federal appeals court declared Louisiana’s law mandating Ten Commandments displays in public schools unconstitutional, siding with plaintiffs who argued it violated the separation of church and state. This ruling, upholding a lower court’s decision, stems from a lawsuit filed by parents of children from diverse religious backgrounds. While the state attorney general plans to appeal, arguing the ruling’s limited scope, the appeals court’s decision binds all Louisiana school districts. The case is expected to reach the Supreme Court, potentially revisiting prior Supreme Court precedent on similar religious displays in public spaces.
Read More
Learning Resources and hand2mind petitioned the Supreme Court to expedite their challenge to President Trump’s tariffs, citing the significant economic impact on businesses and consumers. The companies argue that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the president the authority to impose these tariffs. They request a September or October hearing, aiming to circumvent the appeals process currently underway in the D.C. Circuit Court. A lower court previously ruled against the administration, finding IEEPA did not authorize the tariffs, though this ruling was limited in scope. The Supreme Court’s intervention is sought to swiftly address the ongoing substantial financial harm caused by the tariffs.
Read More
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
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood