The Supreme Court heard arguments challenging Donald Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs, and the justices expressed significant skepticism towards the administration’s arguments. Conservative justices, including Chief Justice Roberts, questioned the scope of the president’s authority in this context, particularly concerning the power of Congress over tariffs. This potential ruling could be a major check on the Trump administration’s policies, especially considering the court has previously accommodated his policies. Two possible explanations for this potential shift include a wariness of presidential interference in the economy and a desire to preserve the major questions doctrine for future use, possibly against future Democratic administrations. This may also be the Court attempting to preserve their legitimacy.
Read More
The Supreme Court Justices on Wednesday, expressed considerable skepticism regarding the legality of the aggressive tariffs imposed by the Trump administration. Justices questioned the administration’s justification for enacting the tariffs, with both conservative and liberal justices scrutinizing the process. The core of the legal challenge centers on whether the tariffs, levied under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, overstepped the President’s authority and infringed on Congress’s power to tax, as lower courts have ruled. If allowed to stand, the tariffs could generate trillions in revenue, highlighting the potential fiscal impact.
Read More
Republicans Swiftly File Lawsuit in Bid to Block California’s New House Maps, and it’s a situation that has a lot of people talking, and for good reason. It seems the political landscape has become a bit of a mirror, with accusations of hypocrisy and calls for similar actions in other states. The core of the issue? Republicans are challenging California’s new House maps, claiming they are unconstitutional. The heart of their argument centers on the idea that these maps improperly consider voters’ race when drawing district lines.
The timing of this lawsuit is interesting, and the intensity with which it’s being pursued seems rather telling.… Continue reading
The Supreme Court is hearing a case regarding President Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs, a move with significant implications for the global economy. The administration defends the tariffs, arguing they are permissible under emergency law, while challengers, including small businesses and Democratic-leaning states, claim the president overstepped his authority. The core dispute revolves around whether the 1977 emergency powers law grants the president the authority to unilaterally levy tariffs, a power constitutionally reserved for Congress. A ruling against Trump could impact the $195 billion in revenue generated by the tariffs and potentially set the tone for future legal challenges to his policies, despite Trump having appointed a conservative majority to the court.
Read More
Legal scholar Lisa Graves argues in her book, “Without Precedent,” that Chief Justice John Roberts has actively undermined American democracy to serve Trump’s agenda. Roberts, who once promised that no one is above the law, has consistently acted in ways that favor Trump, including decisions on presidential immunity and voting rights. This capture of the Supreme Court has been orchestrated by the right-wing legal movement, particularly the Federalist Society, resulting in a court that is out of step with the American people. Roberts’ actions, according to Graves, position him as a “Trumpire” bending the rules to aid Trump and consolidate Republican power.
Read More
The Supreme Court is currently hearing *Trump v. Illinois*, a case regarding President Trump’s attempt to deploy the National Guard to quell protests outside an immigration detention facility. Trump argues his authority to control the National Guard is exclusive and non-reviewable by courts, citing federal law allowing such action in cases of rebellion or inability to execute laws. However, lower courts have ruled against Trump, finding the situation doesn’t meet the legal requirements for military intervention. The crux of the case lies in whether the Supreme Court will limit Trump’s power or grant him broad authority to use military personnel domestically, especially considering the current court’s composition and past rulings.
Read More
The Supreme Court is poised to consider a challenge from Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk, regarding the legality of same-sex marriage. Davis, who previously defied court orders and was briefly jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, is petitioning the court to overturn the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges ruling. A 2024 Gallup poll indicates that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage, though partisan divides persist. The Supreme Court will decide whether to hear the case, with a decision expected as early as November 10, potentially setting up a significant moment for LGBTQ+ rights.
Read More
The Supreme Court is set to consider Kim Davis’ challenge to same-sex marriage at a private conference, marking the first time the justices will deliberate on the case. Davis, a former Kentucky clerk, refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, leading to a lawsuit and a subsequent jury awarding damages to the couple. The 6th Circuit rejected Davis’ appeal, citing that she was acting on behalf of the government, and therefore not protected by the First Amendment. Davis has requested the Supreme Court to review the decision, arguing her religious beliefs were violated.
Read More
Recent Supreme Court decisions have granted the president significant control over the executive branch, effectively allowing President Trump to demand the Justice Department transfer $230 million in taxpayer funds to his personal account. This power stems from the Supreme Court’s reinterpretation of the Constitution under Chief Justice John Roberts, establishing a unitary executive theory. While Trump claims these payments are compensation for investigations into his past actions, the article questions the ethical implications, especially as the DOJ officials involved were formerly Trump’s lawyers. This situation illustrates concerns about corruption and the potential for Trump to exploit this power for personal gain, with further implications if he gains control of other government entities like the Federal Reserve.
Read More
A federal judge has ruled that the Department of Defense must return books about race and gender to school libraries on military bases after the removal of nearly 600 books sparked a lawsuit. The students, children of active-duty service members, alleged their First Amendment rights were violated due to the removal of books covering topics such as sexual identity and racism. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a motion on behalf of the families, arguing the removals stemmed from partisan motivations related to executive orders prohibiting materials promoting “gender ideology and discriminatory equity ideology” and guidance issued by the Secretary of Defense. Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles sided with the students, citing “improper partisan motivation” and ordering the restoration of the removed materials.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood