Tag: scotus

Maine Lawmaker Asks Supreme Court to Reverse Speech Ban

A Maine legislator has turned to the US Supreme Court after being effectively stripped of her ability to represent her constituents over a controversial social media post. Republican Rep. Laurel Libby, who serves District 90, submitted an emergency request to the high court this week, seeking to overturn a disciplinary action imposed by her fellow lawmakers that has barred her from voting or speaking on the House floor since February.

The dispute stems from a Facebook post Libby made criticizing the inclusion of a transgender athlete in a statewide girls’ pole vault competition.

The post included a mention of a Maine student and questioned the fairness of allowing biological males to compete in girls’ sports categories, a stance that ignited outrage among Democratic legislators. In response, the House voted to censure Libby and conditioned her return to full legislative participation on an apology she had refused to give.

Rather than comply, Libby launched a legal fight to restore her role, arguing the punishment amounted to unconstitutional retaliation. After lower courts refused to intervene, she is now asking the Supreme Court to address what she sees as a blatant violation of the First Amendment and a denial of her constituents’ right to representation.

We obtained a copy of the application for you here.

“For over 60 days my constituents have had no say in any actions taken by their government, actions that directly impact their lives,” she wrote in a post on X. “Every vote taken on the floor of the legislature is a vote my constituents cannot get back. The good people of our district have been silenced and disenfranchised.”

Libby emphasized that the case raises serious concerns about the limits of legislative authority when it comes to penalizing elected officials for their speech.

Keep reading

Supreme Court’s “Ghost Gun” Ruling Accidentally Paves Way For Next-Gen 80% Firearms

In late March, the Supreme Court upheld a Biden administration rule regulating so-called ghost guns — unserialized firearms — delivering what initially appeared to be a victory for billionaire-funded gun control groups, anti-Second Amendment Democrats, and their allies in the corporate media. However, the ruling has inadvertently opened a new frontier for DIY firearm kits, alleges one ghost gun maker.

The high court’s ruling in Bondi v. VanDerStok (originally Garland v. VanDerStok, but renamed after a new Attorney General was appointed) was a 7–2 decision upholding the rule issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) requiring ghost gun makers to include serial numbers on kits and conduct background checks on purchasers.

According to Defense Distributed’s Cody Wilson, the March 26th opinion, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, was a master class in judicial hand-waving—a carefully worded evasion that accidentally set a new standard even stronger than Chevron for upholding administrative agency actions while quietly greenlighting the next evolution of DIY firearm kits.

In Wilson’s view, the high court’s ruling did not ban ghost guns but instead inadvertently provided a roadmap for how the industry can survive — and even thrive.

Parsing through Gorsuch’s opinion, Wilson cited a few lines from pages 11 and 12 that show the DIY firearm kit industry is far from dead:

On page 11:

In the same way and for the same reason, an ordinary speaker might well describe the “Buy Build Shoot” kit as a “weapon.” Yes, perhaps a half hour of work is required before anyone can fire a shot. But even as sold, the kit comes with all necessary components, and its in-tended function as an instrument of combat is obvious. Really, the kit’s name says it all: “Buy Build Shoot.”

On page 12:

That turns out to tell us all we need to know about the statute’s “ready conversion” test. As we have seen, a person without any specialized knowledge can convert a starter gun into a working firearm using everyday tools in less than an hour. Mullins, 446 F. 3d, at 755. And measured against that yardstick, the “Buy Build Shoot” kit can be “readily converted” into a firearm too, for it requires no more time, effort, expertise, or specialized tools to complete.

“Although the plain text in this opinion is intended more as an admonishment of Polymer80, which had become the ghost gun industry’s largest single success story, it also undermines the ATF’s purposely vague “tests” for determining when components have or have not become firearms,” Wilson said, adding that ghost gun kits are not dead after the ruling – just the high court saying kits must be:

  1. Require more than an hour of effort and work
  2. Involve uncommon tools to complete, and;
  3. Lack all necessary components to be built into a functioning weapon

On Saturday, Defense Distributed debuted the next iteration of DIY firearm kits that fit the new definitions of the high court’s ruling. The new ghost gun is called the “G80.”

Keep reading

Not so fast on the FDA’s food dye ban — the Supreme Court has changed the rules 

Last week, the Food and Drug Administration announced long-awaited bans on certain food dyes and added new warnings about sugar in processed foods. Public health advocates cheered. Parents breathed a sigh of relief. But as someone who has spent years reporting on the intersection of federal science, health and regulation, I have a warning: In today’s legal climate, we are celebrating too soon. 

The Supreme Court’s recent reversal of the Chevron doctrine means every new regulation is now living on borrowed time — and the FDA’s food dye ban may be its first casualty. 

For 40 years, the “Chevron deference” gave federal agencies the benefit of the doubt in their interpretations of ambiguous laws within their areas of expertise. So when Congress writes broad rules, courts are to give agencies like the FDA, EPA and NOAA wide latitude to fill in the scientific and technical details.

But last year, in a move cheered by conservative legal activists, the Supreme Court struck down Chevron. Now, federal judges need not give such great deference to agencies as to what the law means, even on issues where the judges have no practical experience, such as food additives and clean air.

This is a landmark shift with potentially far-reaching consequences. While a regulation-friendly administration like Joe Biden’s can’t guarantee that new public health protections will survive the courts, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s FDA under the Trump administration should prepare to encounter similar hurdles.

The Chevron ruling presented us with a fitting preview of what happens when judges — as opposed to subject-matter experts at relevant agencies — determine the best way to interpret applicable regulatory frameworks within the law.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, in a concurring opinion overturning Chevron, referenced “nitrous oxide” as a pollutant from coal plants. Nitrous oxide — the compound best known for providing the temporary euphoria you may experience while a dentist fills a cavity — has nothing to do with the “nitrogen oxides” that actually come out of smokestacks and threaten respiratory health.  

Keep reading

Schumer: If Trump Disobeys Supreme Court Order ‘Extraordinary Action Will Be Necessary’

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said Thursday on MSNBC’s “Chris Jansing Reports” that if President Donald Trump disobeyed a Supreme Court order, “extraordinary action will be necessary.”

Jansing said, “The Supreme Court said the administration must facilitate the return of Kilmer Abrego Garcia, who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador. That has not happened. Are we at the point, Senator, where you feel extraordinary action is warranted?”

Schumer said, “Look, the case will be back to the Supreme Court, they sent it down to the lower court judge. But if the president disobeys a Supreme Court order, extraordinary action will be necessary. We’ve never had that in the Republic before, in the kind of way that the president is doing it. And again, he doesn’t believe in democracy. He doesn’t believe there should be diversity of opinion. He doesn’t believe in due process. You can’t pick up someone off the streets and send them somewhere if you don’t have evidence, if you haven’t presented evidence against them, the country, the democracy is at risk.”

Keep reading

Supreme Court likely to rule for parental opt-out on LGBTQ books in schools

The Supreme Court on Tuesday was sympathetic to a group of Maryland parents who want to be able to opt their elementary-school-aged children out of instruction that includes LGBTQ+ themes. The parents argued that the local school board’s refusal to give them that choice violates their religious beliefs and therefore their constitutional right to freely exercise their religion. During nearly two-and-a-half hours of oral argument, a majority of the justices seemed to agree with them, with several justices questioning whether there would even be any harm to simply allowing the parents to excuse their children from the instruction. 

The parents in the case have children in the public schools in Montgomery County, which is in the Washington, D.C., suburbs and is one of the most religiously diverse counties in the United States. The parents include Tamer Mahmoud and Enas Barakat, who are Muslim, Melissa and Chris Persak, who are Roman Catholic, and Svitlana and Jeff Roman, who are Ukrainian Orthodox and Roman Catholic. 

In 2022, the county’s school board approved books featuring LGBTQ+ characters for use in its language-arts curriculum. One book describes the story of a girl attending her uncle’s same-sex wedding, for example, while another book, Pride Puppy, tells the story of a puppy that gets lost during a Pride parade. 

The following year, the board announced that it would no longer allow parents to excuse their children from instruction using the LGBTQ-themed storybooks. That prompted the parents in this case to go to federal court, where they argued that the board’s refusal to allow them to opt their children out violated their rights under the First Amendment to freely exercise their religion because it stripped them of their ability to instruct their children on issues of gender and sexuality according to their respective faiths and to control how and when their children are exposed to these issues. 

The lower courts refused to temporarily require the school board to notify the parents when the storybooks would be used and give them a chance to opt their children out of instruction. A federal appeals court reasoned that on the “threadbare” facts before it, the parents had not demonstrated that exposing their children to the storybooks compelled the parents to violate their religion. 

Several justices had questions about what it means for children to be “exposed” to the storybooks. Justice Clarence Thomas asked Eric Baxter – who argued on behalf of the parents – whether the LGBTQ-themed storybooks were merely present in the classroom, or instead actively used as part of the curriculum. 

Keep reading

Trump slams Supreme Court over deportations, says it is ‘not possible’ to try every illegal migrant

President Donald Trump on Monday slammed the United States’ court system, including the Supreme Court, over their response to his efforts to deport illegal migrants, stating it is “not possible” to try every person who is in the U.S. illegally.

The Supreme Court over the weekend temporarily blocked Trump’s latest round of deportations under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. Trump’s deportations have come under scrutiny after he removed hundreds of illegal migrants he accused of being gang members without due process. 

The president defended his actions in a post on Truth Social, claiming it would take “200 years” to try every illegal migrant, and slammed the Supreme Court for allegedly not wanting him to “send violent criminals and terrorists back to Venezuela.” 

“I’m doing what I was elected to do, remove criminals from our Country, but the Courts don’t seem to want me to do that,” Trump wrote in the post. “My team is fantastic, doing an incredible job, however, they are being stymied at every turn by even the U.S. Supreme Court, which I have such great respect for, but which seemingly doesn’t want me to send violent criminals and terrorists back to Venezuela, or any other Country.”

The president praised Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s dissent, stating the justice was right for wanting to “dissolve the pause on deportations.”

Keep reading

Is This Why the Supreme Court Halted the Tren de Aragua Deportation Flights?

Over the weekend, the Supreme Court halted the deportation flights of Tren de Aragua members. It was a 7-2 decision. Only Justices Alito and Thomas dissented. The liberal media will once again overplay their hand here, as they’ve done on the Abrego Garcia case, the MS-13 gang member who got deported back to El Salvador. The Supreme Court never ordered Trump to bring him back.

On this issue, the initial ruling was that the president has the authority to invoke the Alien Enemies Act to deport these illegal alien terrorists—members of Tren de Aragua. Still, they had to give ample notice of their deportation and the ability to challenge it in court. For this group in Texas that was about to be shipped out, they claim no options to challenge was afforded to them. The American Civil Liberties Union raced to block these deportations. Ed Whelan at National Review claims one reason the court issued this temporary pause is because they don’t trust the Trump administration.

It’s ridiculous that no due process shenanigans were brought up when Joe Biden was importing criminal illegal aliens, but now they’re being deported and Democrats are crying, we must go through them on a case-by-base basis.

Keep reading

Rap sheets, photos of suspected Tren de Aragua gang members Trump admin tried to deport before SCOTUS ruling

The Trump administration on Saturday released the rap sheets and photos of alleged Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang members detained in Texas who the administration is trying to deport.

The suspects of the violent Venezuelan gang were going to be deported using the recently reinstated Alien Enemies Act of 1798 before the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled Saturday morning against deportations under the 18th century law.

In a decision in favor of the American Civil Liberties Union, the administration was barred from removing Venezuelans held in Texas’ Bluebonnet Detention Center “until further order of this court.”

Following the ruling, Trump administration lawyers filed an opposition to the request to block the deportations, noting the government provided advance notice to detainees prior to removals, and they had adequate time to file habeas claims.

At a minimum, attorneys argued the court should limit the administrative stay to removals.

SCOTUS previously ruled the president could conduct deportations under the Alien Enemies Act as long as suspected illegal aliens were afforded due process to challenge their removal from the US.

“These are some of the TdA gang members detained in Texas that we are trying to deport,” a senior Trump administration official told Fox News.

Keep reading

SCOTUS Showdown: Justice Alito Issues Scathing Rebuke of Politically Motivated Order Blocking Trump from Deporting Foreign Terrorists Under Alien Enemies Act

In a blistering dissent, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, has called out the reckless and legally dubious move by the Court’s liberal majority to block President Donald Trump’s lawful efforts to deport dangerous foreign nationals under the Alien Enemies Act.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a late-night, unsigned emergency order blocking President Donald Trump from deporting foreign nationals tied to the violent Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang, who are being held at the Bluebonnet Detention Center in Texas under the centuries-old Alien Enemies Act.

According to the order:

“There is before the Court an application on behalf of a putative class of detainees seeking an injunction against their removal under the Alien Enemies Act. The matter is currently pending before the Fifth Circuit. Upon action by the Fifth Circuit, the Solicitor General is invited to file a response to the application before this Court as soon as possible.

The Government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this Court. See 28 U. S. C. §1651(a). Justice Thomas and Justice Alito dissent from the Court’s order. Statement from Justice Alito to follow.”

The ruling came in response to a hastily filed emergency appeal from the ACLU on behalf of a “putative class” of noncitizen detainees.

According to ACLU, “Plaintiffs learned that the government has begun giving notices of removal to class members, in English only, which do not say how much time individuals have to contest their removal or even how to do so… And officers last night told class members that they will be removed within 24 hours, which expires as early as this afternoon. Upon information and belief, individuals have already been loaded on to buses.”

In a fiery dissent joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, Alito took direct aim at the Court’s liberal majority, blasting their eleventh-hour injunction as legally questionable and procedurally incoherent.

Keep reading

Supreme Court blocks, for now, new deportations under 18th century wartime law

The Supreme Court on Saturday blocked, for now, the deportations of any Venezuelans held in northern Texas under an 18th century wartime law.

In a brief order, the court directed the Trump administration not to remove Venezuelans held in the Bluebonnet Detention Center “until further order of this court.”

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.

The high court acted in an emergency appeal from the American Civil Liberties Union contending that immigration authorities appeared to be moving to restart removals under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The Supreme Court had said earlier in April that deportations could proceed only if those about to be removed had a chance to argue their case in court and were given “a reasonable time” to contest their pending removals.

“We are deeply relieved that the Court has temporarily blocked the removals. These individuals were in imminent danger of spending the rest of their lives in a brutal Salvadoran prison without ever having had any due process,” ACLU lawyer Lee Gelernt said in an email.

On Friday, two federal judges refused to step in as lawyers for the men launched a desperate legal campaign to prevent their deportation, even as one judge said the case raised legitimate concerns. Early Saturday, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also refused to issue an order protecting the detainees from being deported.

The administration is expected to return to the Supreme Court quickly in an effort to persuade the justices to lift their temporary order.

The ACLU had already sued to block deportations of two Venezuelans held in the Bluebonnet facility and sought an order barring removals of any immigrants in the region under the Alien Enemies Act.

In an emergency filing early Friday, the ACLU warned that immigration authorities were accusing other Venezuelan men held there of being members of the Tren de Aragua gang, which would make them subject to President Donald Trump’s use of the act.

Keep reading