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
In a controversial decision, the Supreme Court allowed Donald Trump to cancel $4 billion in foreign aid appropriated by Congress. The ruling, seemingly based on a “pocket rescission” strategy, granted Trump the ability to withhold funds until they expired, effectively giving him a line-item veto. This decision, reached through the shadow docket, shifts power from the legislative to the executive branch. The Court’s justification focused on the president’s authority over foreign affairs outweighing Congress’ spending control, a move that could lead to a president impounding any funds they dislike, undermining the separation of powers.
Read More
The presidential notice declares the United States is in a noninternational armed conflict with designated terrorist organizations, though specific groups are not named. This broad classification allows the administration to continue unilateral actions against perceived threats. Critics point out that this interpretation stretches international law and could be used to justify violence against loosely organized groups. Experts like Brian Finucane suggest the lack of clarity regarding the targeted groups’ organization creates legal issues.
Read More
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case concerning Hawaii’s law requiring express permission from private property owners for individuals to carry guns, potentially impacting gun carry rights in various public spaces. This decision follows a 2022 Supreme Court ruling that expanded access to guns, and Hawaii’s law, enacted in response, reverses the prior requirement that property owners explicitly prohibit guns. The case stems from a challenge by gun owners who argue the law infringes on their right to carry in public, with the government’s argument emphasizing the unique restriction on guns compared to other items. The Court’s decision will hinge on historical precedent as outlined in its prior ruling, and could have significant implications for “sensitive place” restrictions on guns.
Read More
A recent Gallup poll reveals that a record-high 43% of Americans perceive the U.S. Supreme Court as “too conservative.” This shift in public opinion coincides with the court’s conservative majority, which has ruled in favor of the Trump administration on numerous key issues and the Court’s approval rating has slipped in recent years. The poll also highlights that 42% of the cases last term were decided unanimously, a figure that has decreased over the last few years. The Supreme Court is set to begin its new session with the first argument scheduled for October 6th.
Read More
The Supreme Court has allowed Lisa Cook to remain as a Federal Reserve governor for now, declining to act on the Trump administration’s effort to immediately remove her from the central bank. The court will hear arguments in January regarding Trump’s attempt to force Cook off the Fed board and will consider whether to block a lower-court ruling in Cook’s favor. This case stems from Trump’s unprecedented bid to reshape the Fed board and stems from accusations of mortgage fraud against Cook, while a related case involving Trump’s firings of other federal officials is also being heard. Cook, who denies any wrongdoing, will be able to participate in the remaining two Fed meetings in 2025.
Read More
Recent polling data reveals a growing perception among Americans that the Supreme Court is too conservative, reaching a new high of 43%. This shift is primarily driven by increasing dissatisfaction among Independents and Democrats, mirroring a trend observed since the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett. Simultaneously, the court’s approval rating has become highly polarized, with a significant divide between Republicans and Democrats, and public confidence in the federal judiciary has dipped to near-record lows.
Read More
Justice Clarence Thomas recently stated that settled legal precedent should not be treated as “gospel,” suggesting some decisions may be based on questionable foundations. He criticized the court’s adherence to precedent, advocating for a re-evaluation of “stare decisis.” Thomas’s remarks come before the Supreme Court’s new term and follow the overturning of Roe v. Wade, where he also expressed a desire to reconsider other substantive due process precedents. This stance reflects a broader conservative effort to dismantle precedents related to civil liberties and social progress.
Read More
Speaking at the Catholic University of America, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas questioned the infallibility of settled legal precedent, suggesting some rulings may lack a strong foundation. Thomas, part of the court’s conservative majority, emphasized that precedent should be based on more than just theoretical underpinnings and respectful of legal tradition. He further stated that he feels no obligation to uphold a precedent if it doesn’t make sense. This perspective comes as the court is poised to address significant cases, potentially including a challenge to the Obergefell decision legalizing same-sex marriage.
Read More
Justice Clarence Thomas, during a recent appearance, argued that the Supreme Court should critically re-evaluate established legal precedents, implying they are not absolute. Thomas used a metaphor to criticize his colleagues for blindly following precedent. His remarks come as the Supreme Court prepares to address cases that could potentially overturn landmark decisions, including the legalization of same-sex marriage and key provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Thomas’s views reflect his long-standing desire to revisit significant Supreme Court rulings, particularly given the current conservative majority, despite the Court’s overall reluctance to overturn past decisions.
Read More
Matt Underwood 
John Q. Hosedrinker