The Texas Supreme Court has added a comment to the state’s judicial conduct code, clarifying that judges can decline to perform wedding ceremonies based on sincerely held religious beliefs without violating rules on judicial impartiality. This change, effective immediately, may have implications for gay marriage and a pending federal lawsuit. The modification amends Canon 4 of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, which addresses impartiality, in response to a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals inquiry spurred by a case involving a judge’s refusal to marry same-sex couples. The court’s clarification seemingly addresses concerns raised in the lawsuit, offering protection for judges with religious objections.
Read More
Mooty’s confirmation to the federal bench places him among a cohort of judges signaling allegiance to Trump. During his Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Mooty notably avoided directly acknowledging the outcome of the 2020 election, stating instead that the certified winner based on the Electoral College vote determines the president. He also declined to comment on the January 6th Capitol riots, citing the inappropriateness of such responses for a judicial nominee, further highlighting his stance. These actions raise questions regarding his judicial impartiality.
Read More
The BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) determined that a presenter violated editorial guidelines by describing Hamas as a “terror group” during a June 15 broadcast. This ruling will likely fuel continued debate over the broadcaster’s characterization of Hamas, particularly since the October 7 attacks. The BBC’s editorial guidelines typically mandate that the term “terrorist” be used only with attribution. The BBC maintains its stance to avoid being perceived as aligned with the UK government, a move meant to preserve its impartiality in reporting.
Read More
BBC staff are reportedly in “open revolt” over the corporation’s decision not to air the documentary “Gaza: Doctors Under Attack,” which was commissioned and then scrapped. The documentary, made by Emmy-award winning filmmakers, examines allegations of Israeli targeting of hospitals and was set to be shown on Channel 4 instead. More than 300 BBC staff members have allegedly signed an open letter expressing concerns about “censorship” and labeling the decision as “political.” The BBC stated that the documentary risked creating a perception of partiality and did not meet impartiality standards.
Read More
A Reuters/Ipsos poll reveals deep partisan divisions regarding the Supreme Court’s perceived political neutrality, with only 20% of respondents believing it to be unbiased. The Court’s upcoming rulings on key issues, including transgender healthcare bans, birthright citizenship, and online pornography restrictions, further highlight this stark partisan divide, reflecting already declining public approval. While support for restricting minors’ access to pornography enjoys broad bipartisan backing, opinions on the other issues are sharply split along party lines, with Republicans generally favoring stricter measures and Democrats exhibiting significant opposition. This polarization underscores the lack of public trust in the Court’s impartiality.
Read More
Judge Boasberg, a jurist previously targeted by former President Trump, has been assigned to preside over the Signalgate lawsuit. This assignment has sparked significant online discussion, fueled by the judge’s past run-ins with Trump and the potentially explosive nature of the case itself. The controversy surrounding the judge’s selection is further intensified by the perceived high stakes of the litigation and the possibility of further political attacks.
The concerns raised center on the potential for undue pressure on Judge Boasberg. Many commentators express worries that his previous clashes with Trump could lead to attempts to discredit him or influence his decisions in the Signalgate case.… Continue reading
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
Judge Chutkan’s strong stance against Trump’s legal team in the January 6th case, including a gag order, has led to significant conflict. This now positions her to oversee a critical lawsuit targeting Elon Musk’s alleged unprecedented executive power. The suit alleges Musk’s control over federal funding, data, and agency operations is without historical precedent. The case’s outcome will significantly impact the future of the U.S. government and a potential second Trump administration.
Read More
The Supreme Court narrowly (5-4) refused Donald Trump’s request to postpone his sentencing hearing, a decision allowing the proceeding to proceed via Zoom. Trump was subsequently sentenced for multiple felonies, though he received no jail time, fine, or probation. The court’s majority cited the availability of appeals and the minimal disruption to Trump’s presidential duties as justification. This outcome, while offering a symbolic moment of accountability, ultimately highlighted the limitations of the legal system in meaningfully punishing powerful figures.
Read More
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito spoke with President-elect Trump the day before Trump’s lawyers petitioned the court to halt his upcoming hush-money sentencing. Alito claims the call, at the request of a former law clerk, solely concerned a job recommendation and did not involve the pending petition. However, the timing raises ethical concerns regarding potential protocol violations given the court’s consideration of Trump’s appeal. Trump’s legal team argues the sentencing would interfere with the presidential transition, citing potential presidential immunity. The Supreme Court will now consider Trump’s petition.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood