Tag: scotus

Supreme Court Rejects Bid to Overturn Texas “Book Bans,” Library May Remove LGBTQ Books

The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected an appeal by a group of Texas county residents challenging their local library’s removal of LGBTQ and other controversial books from its bookshelves.

Yesterday, the Court denied the groups’ petition to review the case, letting stand the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ earlier dismissal of their free speech claims against the so-called “book bans.”

We covered the case, Little v. Llano County, here:

Federal Appeals Court Tosses “Book Ban” Challenge, Library May Remove Books Based on Content

To recap briefly, the conflict between county residents and library officials began in 2021, when, responding to public complaints, the Llano County library removed 17 controversial books from its shelves, including these children’s books: Freakboy; Freddy the Farting Snowman; and Being Jazz: My Life As a Transgender Teen.  A group of patrons then sued, alleging the library had illegally banned the books.

At first, the case was going the plaintiffs’ way. In 2023, the federal district court sided with the patrons, ruling the library violated their right to receive information under the Free Speech Clause and ordering the books to be put back on the shelves. Last year, a divided panel of the Fifth Circuit Court agreed.

On appeal, however, a full panel of the Fifth Circuit ruled 10-7 that there is “no such right” under the First Amendment: “It is one thing to tell the government it cannot stop you from receiving a book,” Judge Stuart Duncan, a Trump appointee, wrote on behalf of the panel.  “The First Amendment protects your right to do that.” “It is another thing for you to tell the government which books it must keep in the library. The First Amendment does not give you the right to demand that.”

The court also held that the library’s book selections are government speech, similar to a city museum’s selection of which paintings to feature in an exhibit—and therefore not subject to a Free Speech challenge.

The library patrons then petitioned the Supreme Court to intervene and reverse the appellate court’s decision “immunizing” viewpoint discrimination in violation of their First Amendment rights.

Now, in denying their bid to review the case, the Court leaves in place the rule in the Fifth Circuit, that the First Amendment can’t be invoked to challenge a library’s decision “about which books to buy, which books to keep, or which books to remove.”

Keep reading

Russia hoaxer Marc Elias just humiliated himself in front of Clarence Thomas…

Marc Elias has spent years masquerading as a serious legal mind, even though everyone who actually practices law knows the truth: he’s a clown. If it wasn’t for the Clintons, he’d be chasing ambulances in some podunk town. Instead, Elias is a political fixer. A Clinton-world errand boy. The kind of guy who speaks loudly to cover the fact that his arguments collapse the moment any competent person pushes back.

Also, remember, this is the same Marc Elias who helped inject the Russia hoax into the bloodstream of American media. The same Marc Elias who turned opposition research into a national mental illness. Cable news loves him because he talks fast, says scary things about Trump, and never has to face cross-examination.

So naturally, for reasons known only to the left’s most overconfident strategists, everybody decided that Marc Elias was the guy to take his act to the Supreme Court of The United States.

That decision didn’t go well…

Instead of friendly fake news anchors nodding along, Elias ran straight into a brick wall called Clarence Thomas. Elias had no script to fall back on. He wasn’t getting those lovely, gentle softball lobs. This guy went into the lion’s den with zero protection. So, when Marc had to face a competent Justice, quietly asking him to explain what the heck he was arguing and why any of it made constitutional sense, Marc crumbled.

It was painful.

And Elias wasn’t arguing some random fringe case. He was trying to sell the Court on this convoluted theory that coordinated political spending was some “First Amendment” speech issue. Basically, he wanted the justices to believe that paying campaign bills and coordinating expenses somehow magically transforms into “protected expression.”

Justice Thomas was not buying it.

As you listen to the audio, pay attention to what keeps happening. Thomas asks a simple question. Elias responds with a fog machine of confusion. Thomas asks again. Elias keeps circling the drain, repeating phrases like “symbolic speech” and “the act of giving,” without ever landing a coherent answer. Eventually, Thomas flat-out says he does not understand what Elias is even arguing.

Keep reading

North Carolina Woman’s Lawsuit Gives SCOTUS a Chance to Establish National Reciprocity

In January 2021, Eva Marie Gardner was driving in Montgomery County, Maryland when her car was allegedly hit by an assailant who ran her off the road before exiting his vehicle and rushing towards her. Gardner says she first screamed at him to get away, but when he continued advancing she drew her pistol in self-defense, though she never fired a shot. 

When police arrived on scene, they ended up releasing the man who allegedly ran her off the road, but arrested Gardner for illegal possession of a firearm. Gardner, who now lives in North Carolina, had a valid concealed carry permit from Virginia, but Maryland doesn’t recognize carry permits from any other state and she was ultimately convicted despite raising a Second Amendment claim. 

Gardner appealed all the way to the Maryland Supreme Court without success, and in mid-October she took her case to the Supreme Court, filing a cert petition on her own behalf that asks the Court to decide several questions, including whether “Maryland’s prohibition on carrying a handgun without a state permit, as applied to an interstate traveler with a valid Virginia concealed carry permit who displayed a loaded firearm in self-defense against an assailant’s vehicular assault and physical advance, violate the Second Amendment under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, by lacking a historical tradition of disarming law-abiding citizens in such circumstances.”

Gardner also brings a claim under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, arguing that Maryland’s refusal to recognize out-of-state permits violates the Constitution and conflicts with the Firearms Owners Protection Act.

Ordinarily, a pro se petition has little chance of being granted cert by the Supreme Court, with one study finding just 84 cases since 1945. The good news for Gardner is that at least one justice has taken an interest in the case. After Maryland waived its right to respond to her cert petition, the Court requested the state provide one, and Maryland’s reply brief is now due on January 26, 2026. 

Second Amendment Foundation Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros has discovered another new detail that could up the odds of SCOTUS hearing Gardner’s case next year. 

Keep reading

Justice Jackson’s History of Shilling for the Deep State

President Joe Biden’s decision to limit his Supreme Court nominees to black women was widely criticized as a product of DEI-mania, but the ensuing racial controversy was a red herring, a political sleight of hand, designed to distract Americans from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s true purpose on the bench: to protect, preserve, and defend the deep state from the constraints of the Constitution. 

The fallout from the nomination was familiar; CNN’s opinion pages called Republican Senators, including Tom Cotton (R-AR), Josh Hawley (R-MO), and Ted Cruz (R-TX), “racist and sexist” for opposing Jackson; Georgetown Law Professor Ilya Shapiro was suspended for stating that the most qualified candidate was an Indian man, not a black woman; Al Sharpton threw his support behind President Biden.

But Justice Jackson’s position was never intended to be a statement of racial representation or judicial excellence; it was the Biden administration’s anointment of a praetorian guard for the unelected and unaccountable bureaucracy that seeks to prevent President Trump from gaining control of the nation. 

On Monday, the Supreme Court considered whether the President of the United States has the power to remove members of the Executive Branch. The Constitution’s Vesting Clause, which states that the “executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America,” offers an unequivocal answer.  

But Jackson, assuming her role as a corporatist advocate on a government salary, acted as the mouthpiece for those opposed to accountability for the bureaucracy that lives off the taxpayers’ wages. She warned of “the danger of allowing…the President to actually control the transportation board and potentially the Federal Reserve and all these other independent agencies.” 

Keep reading

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Argues Presidents Should Not Be Able to Fire Government Experts

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argued that the president of the United States should not be able to fire government experts such as scientists, doctors, economists, and PhDs, and she claimed it is “not in the best interest” of American citizens.

During oral arguments for Trump v. Slaughter, while talking to U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, Jackson said she did “not understand” why “agencies aren’t answering to Congress.” Jackson pointed out that “Congress established them and can eliminate them.”

The oral arguments come after the Supreme Court, in September, allowed President Donald Trump to remove Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, the former Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

“I really don’t understand why the agencies aren’t answering to Congress,” Jackson said. “Congress established them and can eliminate them. Congress funds them, and can stop. So, to the extent that we’re concerned that there’s some sort of entity that is out of control and has no control, I guess I don’t understand that argument.”

“We would say the Constitutional actor on the hypothetical who is controlling these agencies is Congress, and that is a huge separation of powers,” Sauer argued, as Jackson informed him that she understood.

Jackson continued to point out that Sauer’s arguments “seem to revolve around” the idea that there is “some kind of thing happening with the independent agency, that the reason why the president needs to control it is because they don’t answer to anybody.”

Keep reading

U.S. Supreme Court Smacks Down Lower Court in Major Win for Amish Families Fighting New York’s Draconian School Vaccine Mandates

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday reversed a lower-court decision that had sided with New York State’s sweeping school vaccine mandates, and ordered the case back to the appeals court for a full reconsideration.

At the center of the case is a shocking and deeply disturbing campaign by New York officials to bankrupt Amish schools, intimidate parents, and shut down religious education entirely, all because the Amish refuse to inject their children with state-mandated vaccines that violate their longstanding religious beliefs.

Despite admitting that the Amish families were sincere in their religious beliefs, the New York Department of Health slapped three one-room Amish schools with devastating penalties:

  • $52,000 against Dygert Road School
  • $46,000 against Twin Mountains School
  • $20,000 against Shady Lane School

These fines were issued for a single day of alleged “noncompliance,” and the DOH openly bragged in its filings that it was being “generous,” warning that future fines would be even more severe.

The department declared that each unvaccinated child attending school constituted a separate violation worth up to $2,000 per day.

The Amish schools, which receive no government funding, operate on private land, and are central to the community’s religious life, face closure because the families have no means of paying these six-figure state-imposed financial attacks.

In one year alone, some New York schools granted medical exemptions to 30–50% of their students, depending entirely on local administrator discretion. But the Amish? Zero tolerance. Zero accommodation. Zero exemptions.

Lower courts dismissed their claims. But on Monday, the nation’s highest court issued a rare and forceful correction.

In its Monday order, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for reconsideration “in light of Mahmoud v. Taylor, 606 U.S. 522 (2025),” a landmark ruling handed down earlier this year strengthening protections for religious objectors against state public-health mandates.

Keep reading

WEAPONIZATION EXPOSED: Justice Thomas Corners New Jersey AG’s Counsel — Confirms Subpoena for Pro-Life Donors Issued Even Though NO ONE Complained

Justice Clarence Thomas forced New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin’s chief counsel to admit that the state launched an intrusive investigation into a pro-life pregnancy center without receiving a single complaint about the organization.

During oral arguments in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin, Justice Thomas methodically dismantled the state’s justification for issuing a donor-snooping subpoena targeting First Choice, a faith-based, pro-life pregnancy support network that has operated for over 40 years.

Justice Thomas drilled into a simple, devastating question: “You had no basis to think that they were deceiving any of their contributors?”

Sundeep Iyer, chief counsel to AG Platkin, conceded that New Jersey received zero complaints about First Choice Women’s Resource Centers.

Instead, he claimed the state merely “canvassed public information” before issuing a sweeping subpoena demanding years of internal records, including confidential donor information.

Iyer further admitted that the state did receive complaints about other pregnancy centers, but not First Choice.

First Choice, a faith-based pro-life nonprofit operating in New Jersey since 1985, provides free ultrasounds, pregnancy tests, counseling, and material support to women. It is fully upfront about its pro-life mission, stating on every page of its website that it does not provide or refer for abortion services.

Keep reading

Pregnancy Center Lawfare: Will the Supremes End This?

Tuesday, Dec. 2, will determine whether America’s crisis pregnancy centers can operate freely or whether politicians in pro-abortion states can continue to harass them with lawfare. Tuesday the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin. 

At stake is “the future of pregnancy centers in America” said David Bereit, executive director of Life Leadership Conference. 

How the case started

In November 2023, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin sent subpoenas to the First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, demanding 10 years’ worth of records. The material requested included all solicitations and ads, statements on abortion pill reversal, information given to women, information about outside organizations First Choice worked with, and, most worrisome, staff information and identities of their donors.

There were “no allegations of wrongdoing…. It was a fishing expedition,” said Aimee Huber, executive director of First Choice Women’s Resource Centers. “The idea of compiling this… was daunting,” she said during an emergency webcast briefing scheduled by the Life Leadership Conference. 

Thousands of people nationwide and 40 different pro-life organizations attended the briefing Monday night, said David Bereit, executive director of the Life Leadership Conference. He called it “a pivotal case…weaponizing government power to intimidate, investigate and shut down centers.”

First Choice has served over 36,000 women over the last 40 years through its five locations. “New Jersey has the fifth highest abortion rate,” Huber said. “Since do not refer for abortions, we are a target.”

Critics of pregnancy centers such as First Choice smear them as ‘fake clinics” just for that reason.

Erin Hawley, senior counsel and vice president of the Center for Life, Alliance Defending Freedom, will be arguing for First Choice Tuesday in front of the Supreme Court.  ADF filed a suit in federal court asking the district court to enjoin the subpoena. 

Hawley explained that the district court dismissed the subpoena, saying that federal courts were not a remedy because First Choice first had to go to state court. “Once the state court rules, then there are a couple of legal doctrines that basically say, once one court has decided it, another court can’t,” she said. This is even through Congress expressly provided legislative relief allowing this. 

Numerous organizations not ideologically aligned with First Choice filed amicus briefs supporting First Choice. “They all agree the right to present first amendment claims in federal court when you have been harassed by a hostile official is something that is guaranteed,” said Hawley.

Since the Dobbs decision reversed Roe v. Wade in 2022, pregnancy centers have been busier than ever supporting women and children. Last week the Charlotte Lozier Institute released their 2025 report stating that pregnancy centers had helped over one million women in 2024, and that material support (everything from diapers to car seats) skyrocketed 48%. 

Keep reading

Supreme Court Fails to Keep a Tight Leash on Police K-9 Drug-Sniff Searches That Intrude Into Vehicles, Raising Fourth Amendment Concerns

In yet another ruling that contributes to the steady normalization of police overreach, the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to rein in police K-9 drug-sniff searches during traffic stops.

By declining to hear an appeal in Mumford v. Iowa, the Court let stand an Iowa Supreme Court ruling that allows police to rely on a drug dog’s intrusion into a car’s interior during a traffic stop—even when officers lack probable cause to believe the car contains contraband. In a 5-2 decision in Mumford v. Iowa, the Iowa Supreme Court upheld as constitutional a search in which a police K-9 placed its paws on a car door and inserted its snout through an open window before alerting to drugs.

The Rutherford Institute, joined by Restore the Fourth, had urged the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the ruling, arguing that warrantless, nonconsensual intrusions into protected spaces violate the Fourth Amendment, which extends its protection to a person’s vehicle. The amicus brief further warned that allowing a police dog to breach the interior of a car provides no limiting principle: if a dog’s snout may trespass inside a vehicle without probable cause, then so might thermal-imaging devices, x-ray scanners, fiberscopes, or other police technologies.

“What this ruling makes clear is that no American is safe from government intrusion, not even during a routine traffic stop. This is how constitutional rights are lost—not in dramatic sweeps, but in small, incremental intrusions that courts refuse to check,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “If a police dog’s snout can be used to justify a warrantless search of a car, then there is nothing to stop the government from using ever more intrusive technologies, surveillance tools, and police instrumentalities to invade our privacy with little to no judicial oversight.”

The case arose after an Iowa police officer initiated a traffic stop of Ashlee Mumford’s vehicle, claiming the last two numbers on her license plate were obscured by dirt and grime. The officer summoned a K-9 unit, and Mumford and her passenger were ordered out of the vehicle “for their own safety” while the handler walked the dog around the car to conduct a “free air sniff.” Because Mumford’s passenger had left his window open, the dog pushed its snout through the open window into the cabin before alerting to drugs. A subsequent search of the vehicle uncovered drugs in the glove compartment which apparently belonged to the passenger. Officers then searched Mumford’s purse—which she had taken with her upon exiting the vehicle—and found marijuana and a pipe.

Keep reading

Maine Democrat Senate Candidate Graham Platner Caught on Tape Saying He Wants to ‘Stack’ the Supreme Court and Impeach Two Justices

Maine Democrat Graham Platner, a candidate for the U.S. Senate who has been caught saying racist and sexist things on the internet, admitted he is a communist, and also has lost staffers due to a scandal about his actual Nazi tattoo, is back in the news.

Platner was caught on tape saying to supporters that he wants his party to regain control of the senate in order to ‘stack’ the Supreme Court. He then went on to say that they should also impeach two justices. One can safely assume that Justice Clarence Thomas is one of them and the other is surely another conservative.

This guy belongs nowhere near the United States Senate. He is a total radical.

The Washington Free Beacon reports:

Graham Platner Calls To Stack the Supreme Court and Impeach ‘At Least Two’ Sitting Justices

Senate candidate Graham Platner called to stack the Supreme Court and impeach “at least two” of its sitting justices, moves he said should be top priorities for Democrats should they retake the upper chamber next year.

“We’re going to have to start treating the Supreme Court like the political action wing that it has become of conservatism,” Platner said Saturday during a Somerset County Democrats meeting in the central Maine town of Skowhegan. “It is not functioning as a constitutional body.”

“I’m a supporter of stacking the Court,” he continued. “I’m also a supporter of, I mean, the Senate can write its own rules. … I firmly believe if we held Supreme Court justices to the same standard that we hold other federal judges, there’s a compelling case for the impeachment and removal of at least two justices.”

“It’s very frustrating to me that there are Democrats in the Senate that either do not understand or don’t want to understand the power they actually have. … If we retake the Senate, get the majority—fingers crossed—we need to use every single lever of power that we have to deal with the Supreme Court.”

Keep reading