The Supreme Court is poised to dismantle campaign finance restrictions, potentially eliminating limits on donations and hindering bribery prosecutions. A new book, “Master Plan,” details a decades-long conservative strategy to deregulate campaign finance, culminating in the *Citizens United* decision. Two specific cases, including one backed by J.D. Vance, could allow party committees to become conduits for large donations, and weaken anti-bribery laws. These efforts aim to make it increasingly difficult to prosecute public corruption, allowing for influence peddling.
Read More
Democratic voting rights groups are raising concerns about the potential impact of the Supreme Court’s upcoming rehearing of Louisiana v. Callais. A new report suggests that if Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is overturned, Republicans could redraw up to 19 House seats in their favor. The report warns that such a decision could lead to the dilution of minority voting strength, potentially impacting a significant number of seats held by the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. This could allow states to redraw district lines without federal oversight, particularly in Southern states, and create a permanent challenge unless Democrats take aggressive action.
Read More
The Supreme Court has denied a lawsuit filed by Laura Loomer, a far-right conspiracy theorist, against social media platforms and individuals. Loomer alleged a coordinated effort to censor her on social media, arguing this impacted her congressional campaigns after she was banned from platforms like Twitter and Facebook for “hateful” conduct. Her lawsuit named various defendants and claimed they conspired to suppress conservative speech, but lower courts dismissed the case, finding no violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The Supreme Court’s decision, with Justice Alito recusing himself, effectively ends the legal challenge.
Read More
The Supreme Court has refused to hear Ghislaine Maxwell’s appeal, upholding her 20-year prison sentence for sex trafficking. Maxwell argued she should be shielded from prosecution due to a non-prosecution agreement Epstein secured in Florida, a claim rejected by lower courts. The Justice Department maintained that the agreement did not cover Maxwell, and the court agreed. Maxwell’s lawyer stated that they are disappointed, but will continue to pursue other avenues.
Read More
The Supreme Court rejected an appeal from Ghislaine Maxwell on Monday, declining to review her conviction for sex trafficking. Maxwell’s lawyers argued that a prior non-prosecution agreement also protected her from federal charges. The justices did not provide a reason for their decision, but the Trump administration had previously urged them to stay out of the case. The decision leaves Maxwell serving a 20-year prison sentence.
Read More
U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut issued a temporary restraining order blocking the deployment of 200 National Guard troops to Portland after the state and city sued to prevent the federalization. The judge cited constitutional concerns, arguing the president’s actions undermined Oregon’s sovereignty and blurred the lines between civil and military federal power, granting a temporary restraining order, which could be extended, based on a likelihood of success on the merits. The ruling stems from a memo ordering the National Guard’s federalization and deployment, which was also opposed by the Oregon governor, who stated there was no insurrection or threat warranting the troops. The Trump administration has appealed the ruling, which followed a similar court decision in California against the use of the National Guard, and the president has indicated interest in deploying troops to other cities as well.
Read More
Ketanji Brown Jackson, the Supreme Court’s newest justice, is quickly establishing herself as a powerful liberal voice, especially in her dissents. In a footnote of her dissent in Trump v. Casa, Jackson cited Ernst Fraenkel’s work on Nazi Germany’s dual legal system, drawing a parallel between the current legal landscape and unchecked executive power. This subtle yet striking comparison serves as a warning about the potential threats to the rule of law. Jackson’s dissents, notably in the face of conservative court decisions, are a consistent call for justice.
Read More
Second US appeals court rejects Trump’s order curtailing birthright citizenship. Well, isn’t that something? The second court of appeals has now tossed out Trump’s attempt to chip away at birthright citizenship. You know, the one enshrined in the 14th Amendment? This isn’t just a legal issue; it strikes at the very heart of who we are as Americans. It’s about the promise of equal protection under the law, a promise that’s been a cornerstone of our nation since the Civil War.
This whole situation is like watching a slow-motion train wreck. You know where it’s headed: potentially all the way to the Supreme Court.… Continue reading
The First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston has ruled that the Trump administration cannot withhold citizenship from children born to individuals in the country illegally or temporarily, solidifying the mounting legal setbacks for the president’s birthright order. This ruling marks the fifth federal court since June to either issue or uphold orders blocking the order, concluding that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their claims based on the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. The court upheld preliminary injunctions, which block the order that would have halted automatic citizenship for babies born to people in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. The case is expected to move quickly back to the Supreme Court, where the administration hopes to be vindicated.
Read More
US Supreme Court lets Trump strip temporary status from Venezuelan migrants, and it’s hard not to feel a wave of frustration washing over everything. It feels like we’re watching a very specific playbook in action, a playbook that prioritizes political maneuvering over the wellbeing of hundreds of thousands of people. We’re talking about individuals who, quite literally, followed the rules – they came here with legal status, seeking refuge from a crisis in their home country, and now face the threat of being sent back.
It’s chilling when you consider the scope of what’s at stake. This isn’t about targeting dangerous criminals; it’s about potentially labeling an entire group of people, legally residing in the country, as somehow problematic simply because of their immigration status.… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood