Medication abortion, a two-step process using mifepristone and misoprostol, constitutes over half of all US abortions and is increasingly vital due to abortion restrictions. Highly effective before ten weeks of pregnancy, mifepristone’s access has become fiercely contested since the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Recent legal challenges to the drug’s availability were dismissed by the Supreme Court due to the plaintiffs lacking legal standing. This ruling, however, does not guarantee continued nationwide access to the drug.
Read More
In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the Biden administration’s regulation of ghost gun kits under the Gun Control Act. Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion affirmed the ATF’s authority to regulate these kits as firearms, clarifying that the ruling does not encompass all weapon parts requiring significant assembly. Justices Thomas and Alito dissented, criticizing the regulation as government overreach. The ruling requires manufacturers and sellers to obtain licenses, serialize products, conduct background checks, and maintain records, impacting ghost gun availability.
Read More
The Supreme Court’s rejection of another challenge to the “actual malice” standard upholds the precedent set in *Times v. Sullivan*, protecting public figures from libel suits unless actual malice is proven. This standard prevents wealthy individuals and powerful entities from silencing criticism through litigation. Conversely, private individuals suing for defamation need only demonstrate the falsity of the information and resulting reputational harm. Justice Thomas’s dissent, however, suggests ongoing debate surrounding the “actual malice” standard’s application.
Read More
Chief Justice Roberts issued a statement rebuking President Trump’s call for the impeachment of a federal judge who ruled against him, emphasizing that the appellate process, not impeachment, is the appropriate response to judicial decisions. This statement drew immediate criticism from some conservatives, who argued that Congress retains the constitutional power of impeachment and that judicial overreach warrants such action. Conversely, others lauded Roberts’ defense of judicial independence. The controversy follows Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act and subsequent calls for the judge’s removal.
Read More
The Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn nationwide injunctions blocking its attempt to end birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants. Lower courts have consistently rejected the administration’s argument, deeming the executive order unconstitutional and contrary to established legal precedent interpreting the 14th Amendment. The administration’s appeal focuses on limiting the scope of the injunctions, not directly challenging the constitutionality of the policy itself, though it presented arguments questioning the long-held interpretation of birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court will likely issue a briefing schedule soon, requiring a rapid response from those opposing the administration’s efforts.
Read More
Despite her staunch conservative rulings on cases involving abortion and affirmative action, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, faces criticism from some MAGA supporters. These individuals perceive her as insufficiently loyal to Trump, citing recent 5-4 Supreme Court decisions where she sided against his preferred outcomes. This backlash, fueled by online influencers, accuses Barrett of lacking sufficient alignment with Trump’s agenda and even suggests she is a “diversity, equity, and inclusion” hire, referencing her gender and family. Barrett has not publicly responded to these attacks.
Read More
Chief Justice John Roberts’ carefully constructed image of judicial impartiality was shattered during a post-State of the Union exchange with President Trump. Trump’s effusive thanks, implying prior favors, exposed the perceived non-partisanship as a façade, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s controversial ruling in *Trump v. United States*. This decision, widely criticized for its weak legal reasoning, shielded Trump from federal and state criminal cases, suggesting a partisan motivation. The incident highlights the tension between the Court’s claims of objectivity and its actions, which appear to favor specific political outcomes.
Read More
The Supreme Court, in a surprise 5-4 decision, rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to halt a lower court order mandating nearly $2 billion in foreign aid payments. Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with the Chief Justice and the liberal justices, defying expectations and drawing sharp criticism from conservative commentators. This ruling, a significant blow to the administration’s efforts to freeze USAID funding, stems from a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a blanket freeze on foreign assistance. Barrett’s decision was based in part on her previous opinions regarding administrative stays, which were cited by lower courts in related cases. The administration must now pay the $2 billion for already-completed work.
Read More
The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to freeze billions in congressionally approved foreign aid. While the Court didn’t mandate immediate release of the funds, it directed lower courts to clarify the administration’s obligations regarding a temporary restraining order. Four conservative justices dissented sharply, arguing the lower court overstepped its authority. The ruling, though not explicitly requiring immediate payment, allows for the possibility of compelling the administration to release the funds, signifying a potential area of ongoing legal conflict.
Read More
The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision weakens the Clean Water Act by restricting the EPA’s ability to set generic pollution limits for permit holders. The ruling, authored by Justice Alito, sided with San Francisco’s challenge to EPA permits that held permittees responsible for overall water quality. The majority opinion argued the EPA possesses sufficient tools to obtain necessary information without resorting to “end-result” requirements. Dissenting justices argued this decision contradicts the Clean Water Act’s mandate for stringent limitations to meet water quality standards. The ruling represents a significant shift in environmental regulation.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker