Tag: scotus

Supreme Court Reinstates Database for Voter Citizenship Verification – Ketanji Brown Jackson Fumes

The US Supreme Court on Friday reinstated President Trump’s database for voter citizenship verification.

In an unsigned order, the high court, in a 6-3 decision, allowed the Trump Administration to use an expanded database that contains citizenship information.

Liberal Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented.

“[The] harm caused by burdening or disenfranchising even a few lawful voters outweighs the nonexistent harm that the government experiences when it is prevented from taking an action that it likely lacks the authority to take,” Jackson wrote.

Excerpt from NBC News:

The Supreme Court on Friday permitted the Trump administration to use an expanded federal database containing citizenship information, as the president encourages states to purge people from voter rolls.

The justices, divided 6-3 on ideological lines with conservatives in the majority, granted an emergency request filed by the government after lower courts ruled that the Trump administration’s changes to the database were likely unlawful.

But the court noted in its unsigned ruling that the National Voter Registration Act bars the broad purging of voter rolls in the weeks leading up to an election, which “limits the potential impact” of the decision this year. States can still make individualized queries about voters.

Last March, President Trump signed an executive order aimed at preserving and protecting the integrity of US elections.

“Free, fair, and honest elections unmarred by fraud, errors, or suspicion are fundamental to maintaining our constitutional Republic. The right of American citizens to have their votes properly counted and tabulated, without illegal dilution, is vital to determining the rightful winner of an election,” Trump’s executive order said.

Keep reading

Pete Buttigieg Says Democrats Have to Pack the Supreme Court Because it’s too Partisan

Former Biden Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg appeared on Meet the Press this weekend and explained that Democrats have to pack the U.S. Supreme Court, because it’s just too partisan.

This is one of those complaints that Democrats only make now. When the court had a liberal majority for years, there were no concerns about partisanship, only now is this suddenly an issue.

The Daily Wire has more details:

Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg argued Sunday that the Supreme Court has become dangerously partisan — then proposed a fix that would require Congress to add six justices widely expected to lean in his own party’s favor, during an appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press.

Buttigieg told host Kristen Welker that the court has come to look like a “nakedly partisan institution” and calling for six additional justices to be added to the current nine-member bench — a bigger expansion than he has previously floated.

“It has become a nakedly partisan institution,” he said. “And I want to be clear. The idea is not to just add justices for its own sake. The idea is to reform the institution, to make it less partisan.”

The comments extend a message Buttigieg has delivered repeatedly since at least July, when he told Fox News that public confidence in the court had fallen to what he called the lowest point in its history, and proposed a package of changes including term limits for justices and a “balanced bench” selection process meant to reduce political influence over appointments. At that time, Buttigieg said he favored expanding the court from nine seats to 13, a number he said should match what he called “the number of districts” in the federal system. In fact, the federal judiciary has 94 judicial districts; the number 13 refers to the appellate circuits, not districts — an error critics flagged after his July remarks.

Keep reading

SCOTUS Directs NYC to Offer Defense of Its Stun Gun Ban

The Supreme Court wants to hear from the city of New York after the Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, and several individual plaintiffs asked the Court to accept their lawsuit challenging the Big Apple’s ban on stun guns. The request from the High Court doesn’t guarantee that the justices will grant cert in Calce v. New York, but it does indicate that one or more justices are interested in the lawsuit. 

Back in 2016, SCOTUS issued a per curiam opinion in Caetano v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts that rejected the state’s arguments in favor its own stun gun ban. The Court reminded the First Circuit that the Second Amendment doesn’t only protect those arms that existed in 1791, but modern arms as well. SCOTUS didn’t directly strike down the stun gun ban, but it did negate the argument used to uphold it. …………………

While Massachusetts ended its outright prohibition shortly thereafter, New York City has kept its ban on the books. A district court judge and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals have upheld the ban, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to “provide any evidence that stun guns and tasers are in common use.”

The cert petition filed with the Court not only questions the Second Circuit’s opinion on the validity of the stun gun ban, but how the Court reached its conclusion. Does a challenger to a ban on a type of arm have to first demonstrate that the arm is “in common use” to establish that the ban implicates the Second Amendment’s plain text? Or is it up to the defenders of the ban to demonstrate that the arm is not in common use for lawful purposes? 

Keep reading

Supreme Court rules against new Missouri redistricting map again

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Missouri’s new congressional map again after two separate courts gave conflicting rulings.

Republicans had planned to use the new map in November’s elections. It was drawn last year to give Republicans an advantage in Congressional elections in the hopes of keeping a Republican majority in the House of Representatives. Plaintiffs People not Politicians asked the high court Wednesday for an emergency ruling.

The pause in using the map will stay while a legal fight goes through the courts. The Supreme Court justices didn’t offer any reason for blocking the new map.

A snag in the elections, though, is that Missouri already held primaries using the new map.

The Missouri Supreme Court had ruled that the state couldn’t use the map for this fall’s elections. The state appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh rejected the appeal, kicking it back to the state. At the same time, Federal Judge Stephen R. Clark ruled that the state could use the map, which added more chaos to the elections. It was Clark’s ruling that the Supreme Court decided Thursday.

On Tuesday, Secretary of State Denny Hoskins told local elections officials that the federal judge’s ruling should be followed instead of the Missouri Supreme Court. That court has summoned Hoskins to explain why they shouldn’t find him in contempt.

It’s now unclear what next steps the state will take.

Some map opponents have said the state could continue because the districts are still numbered the same.

“The law is the law, the Missouri Constitution is clear as was the Missouri Supreme Court,” Richard von Glahn, executive director of People Not Politicians Missouri, said in a statement.

Those opposed to the new map collected more than 300,000 signatures to push a referendum on the map, but Hoskins said he didn’t believe that redistricting could be decided in a voter referendum. He refused to add it to the ballot, triggering the legal battles.

Keep reading

U.S. Supreme Court Rejects New York Healthcare Workers’ Bid to Revive COVID Vaccine Mandate Lawsuit

The U.S. Supreme Court today declined for a second time to take up a case brought by New York healthcare workers who lost their jobs after the state denied their requests for religious accommodations from its COVID-19 vaccine mandate, SCOTUSblog reported.

The justices rejected a petition asking them to reconsider their June decision not to hear Does 1-2 v. Hochul, the lawsuit healthcare workers brought against the state. The court denied the request without asking New York Gov. Kathy Hochul to respond.

“This ruling is definitely a sad day for the workers who stood up and said no,” said Michael Kane, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) director of advocacy and member of New York’s Teachers for Choice, which also challenged New York’s vaccine mandate in the courts.

Kane said he was “not surprised” by the decision.

The plaintiffs represented a handful of healthcare workers, he said. “But over 30,000 were fired in New York state because of this horrendous policy from Gov. Hochul. The policy didn’t allow for any religious exemption from vaccination. On its face, it is illegal. It is unconstitutional, but the politics of the thing seems to be playing out instead.”

The workers filed their lawsuit in 2021, challenging a now-repealed New York state law mandating that workers in some healthcare-related positions get the COVID-19 vaccine.

In 2022, a federal court dismissed the lawsuit, and in 2024, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal. In 2025, the workers appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In an unusual move, the Supreme Court asked the U.S. Department of Justice solicitor general to weigh in. In May 2026, Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote an amicus brief recommending the court deny the appeal.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Denies Missouri’s Emergency Appeal to Use State’s New GOP-Favored Congressional Map in Midterms

The Supreme Court on Tuesday denied Missouri’s emergency appeal to use the GOP-favored Congressional map in this year’s midterm elections.

Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh denied Missouri’s emergency application without comment.

Missouri will now have to use its 2022 Congressional map.

The Missouri Supreme Court last Thursday threw out the state’s new congressional map that favored the GOP and eliminated one Democrat seat.

The new map will only go into effect in 2028 if voters approve it during the 2026 midterms.

Last year, the Missouri House of Representatives, controlled by Republicans, passed a sweeping new congressional map that would reduce Democrat representation to just one seat.

The “Missouri First” map promised a fierce partisan restructuring ahead of the 2026 midterms.

Keep reading

Solicitor General John Sauer Warns Supreme Court — “Once These Ballot Envelopes Enter the Mail Stream, THERE IS NO RETRIEVING THEM”

President Trump’s Solicitor General just put the Supreme Court on the clock. If the justices do not act this week, thousands of unsecured mail-in ballots will already be in the postal system, and there will be no way to pull them back.

In an emergency stay application filed over the weekend in United States Postal Service v. California (No. 26A305), Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the Court the window is slamming shut.

“Ballots have already begun to be mailed in North Carolina, and more States will begin the mailing process as the injunction remains in place—including Alabama on September 9 and at least five States the week of September 13,” Sauer wrote. “Once those ballot envelopes enter the mailstream, there is no retrieving them.”

North Carolina started sending absentee ballots last Friday. Alabama is scheduled to start Wednesday. A cluster of additional states, including several that matter in November, begin the week of September 13.

Keep reading

Federal Government Backs Supreme Court Challenge To AR-15 Bans

The federal government is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to side with gun owners challenging state and local bans on AR-15-style rifles.

In a brief filed Friday, Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked the justices to overturn rulings from the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second and Seventh Circuits, which upheld AR-15 bans in Connecticut and Cook County, Illinois, respectively.

“The AR-15 rifle is unquestionably in common use among law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” the federal government argued.

The cases, Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, have been consolidated for Supreme Court review.

Connecticut has prohibited what it deemed “assault weapons” since 1993. It significantly expanded the ban after the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, describing AR-15-style rifles as particularly dangerous and preferred by mass shooters.

Cook County, which covers the city of Chicago, adopted its current firearm ordinance in 2006, prohibiting the possession, sale, and transfer of a list of semiautomatic weapons.

The ‘Common Use’ Debate

At the center of the dispute is whether AR-15-style rifles qualify as weapons “in common use” for lawful purposes and therefore fall under Second Amendment protection.

The idea dates back to the Supreme Court’s 1939 decision upholding a federal ban on short-barreled shotguns because those weapons were not “in common use.”

The Court relied on the same concept in 2008 to invalidate a ban on handguns in the nation’s capital, affirming that they are “the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home.”

Most recently, the Court referred to the common-use test in 2022 when it struck down a New York law requiring people to show a special need before receiving a license to carry a handgun in public.

Connecticut argues that AR-15-style rifles do not meet the Supreme Court’s legal standard.

“Americans do not commonly own assault weapons for self-defense,” state lawyers argued in an earlier Supreme Court filing, adding that the weapons are “neither used nor useful for that purpose.”

The gun owners challenging the bans, however, argue that AR-15s easily pass the common-use test.

“If the most popular rifle in the country is not in common use,” the challengers said in their petition, “it is hard to see what that phrase could possibly mean.”

The Justice Department is siding with challengers in the debate.

“Today, AR-15s are lawful at the federal level and in 40 States, with law-abiding citizens using them for lawful purposes such as self-defense, target shooting, and hunting,” the government said.

“Legislatures may not ban arms in common use among law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”

Keep reading

Donald Trump Just Asked SCOTUS To End the Trans Military Circus Once and For All

Joe Biden let the Pentagon run gender experiments on the military for four years.

Now a pair of Obama and Clinton judges think they outrank the Commander in Chief.

And Donald Trump just asked the Supreme Court to end the transgender military circus once and for all.

The Judges Who Think They Command the Military

Two Democrat-appointed judges on the D.C. Circuit – one picked by Obama, one by Clinton – ruled in June that Pete Hegseth can’t discharge the transgender troops currently serving under an injunction.

That ruling declared the Hegseth policy was likely driven by “hostility” rather than military necessity.

The Trump-appointed dissenter on that same panel said it plainly: the Constitution assigns authority over military service to Congress and the Commander in Chief – not to federal judges.

The Trump-appointed judge was right.

Solicitor General John Sauer called the majority ruling “gravely erroneous” and filed a petition for certiorari on August 28.

He argued the policy doesn’t discriminate against transgender people – it disqualifies individuals with gender dysphoria, a medical condition that affects deployability and readiness.

The government isn’t required to build a perfect case when it comes to military standards. It only has to show a reasonable connection to readiness – and that bar is obvious.

Why SCOTUS Already Answered This Once

This isn’t new territory for the justices.

In May 2025, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority already paused a separate injunction – a Washington state judge’s order blocking the broader ban across the entire military.

That ruling cleared the way for the Pentagon to implement the policy and begin separating trans-identifying service members who hadn’t voluntarily left.

The D.C. Circuit’s June 2026 ruling in Talbott v. United States reopened a hole the Supreme Court had already sealed – protecting a group of individual plaintiffs from discharge while their case heads toward a January 2027 trial.

Keep reading

Sulzbergers Keep Secret Archives at Taxpayer Expense While Denouncing Supreme Court for Doing the Same Thing

A highly hyped New York Times investigation—touted with the unusual label “Times Exclusive”—appeared this month under the headline “How the Supreme Court Locks Away Its Own History.” It complained that “many of the justices have valued confidentiality over transparency and chosen to postpone scrutiny of their work for years to come.”

“Some scholars question why papers should be sealed long after a justice has retired,” says the Times article, by Jodi Kantor, with research and reporting contributed by Julie Tate, Ann Marimow, and Adam Liptak. It quoted a legal historian at the University of California, Davis, Mary Ziegler, accusing the justices of engaging in “reputation management,” and, as Ziegler was paraphrased in the article, “protecting themselves from examination and second-guessing.”

Not disclosed in the Times article: that the papers of former Times publishers Arthur Ochs Sulzberger and Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., donated to the New York Public Library in 2007, are closed to public access until 2035 and 2057, respectively, according to the finding aid to the collection.

Keep reading