The Supreme Court has temporarily allowed the Trump administration to withhold approximately $4 billion needed to fully fund the food aid program, SNAP, for November. This action, a stay issued by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, gives a lower court more time to consider the administration’s request for partial funding, which was initially prompted by a judge’s order to fully fund the program. The administration argued that fully funding SNAP would cause “shutdown chaos”, while the judge accused the administration of withholding benefits for “political reasons” after the administration previously stated they would only provide $4.65 billion in emergency funding. The legal battle stemmed from the administration’s decision to provide only partial funding for SNAP amid the federal government shutdown.
Read More
The Supreme Court is currently considering a challenge to the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, stemming from a case brought by Kim Davis, who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The court is meeting in private to determine if it will hear the appeal, which seeks to overturn the landmark ruling that legalized same-sex marriage. Despite the court’s conservative shift, signals suggest they may not be ready to revisit the issue so soon, considering reliance interests and the principle of stare decisis. However, some believe this is the beginning of a larger challenge to the decision, and LGBTQ advocates remain concerned about the potential for future legal battles.
Read More
Brazil’s Supreme Court panel reviewing former President Jair Bolsonaro’s appeal has largely rejected his request to reduce his 27-year, three-month prison sentence. The justices, led by Justice Alexandre de Moraes, found the defense’s arguments unfeasible and upheld the conviction for attempting a coup following his 2022 electoral defeat. Bolsonaro’s appeal contested the charges and penalties, but the court found sufficient evidence of his awareness and involvement in a coup plot. Although the final decision isn’t finalized, the case has caused major global headlines and has a substantial effect on U.S.-Brazil relations.
Read More
The Supreme Court is considering a longshot appeal from Kim Davis, the former Kentucky court clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, potentially calling for a review of the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges ruling. Davis seeks to overturn a lower court order requiring her to pay damages for denying a marriage license, with her lawyers citing Justice Clarence Thomas’s calls to eliminate the same-sex marriage ruling. Justices like Roberts and Alito, who dissented in the original decision, remain on the court, with Justice Barrett suggesting that overturning same-sex marriage might be more complex than the abortion ruling due to reliance on the decision.
Read More
The Supreme Court hearing regarding the Trump administration’s tariffs was heavily criticized, with six justices expressing strong disapproval of the Justice Department’s defense. Observers noted the court’s apparent frustration with the government’s arguments, suggesting a swift and decisive ruling could have been made. Mark Joseph Stern of Slate highlighted the anticipation surrounding the court’s stance on presidential power, suggesting a dislike of taxes may have influenced their decision.
Read More
The Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to enforce its policy blocking transgender and nonbinary individuals from selecting passport sex markers that align with their gender identity. This decision, a win for the conservative majority, halts a lower court’s order and means the policy can be enforced while the lawsuit continues. The State Department’s policy change followed an executive order that limited sex recognition based on birth certificates. Plaintiffs argue that this policy risks safety for transgender people as they travel, while the government maintains it is vital for accurate identification.
Read More
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
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood