Tag: scotus

US Supreme Court weighs claims Cisco aided Chinese human rights abuses

The U.S. Supreme Court confronted a case on Tuesday with broad implications for human rights litigation in American courts, a long-running lawsuit brought by members of the Falun Gong spiritual movement who have accused Cisco Systems of facilitating religious persecution in China.

The justices heard arguments in Cisco’s appeal of a lower court’s 2023 ruling that breathed new life into the 2011 lawsuit, brought under the Alien Tort Statute of 1789, that accused the company of knowingly developing technology that allowed China’s government to surveil and persecute Falun Gong members.

The court has a 6-3 conservative majority, and some of its conservative justices signaled agreement with the stance taken by Kannon Shanmugam, the lawyer for Cisco, during the arguments.

San Jose, California-based Cisco urged the Supreme Court to further limit the scope of the Alien Tort Statute, which lets non-U.S. citizens seek damages in American courts for violations of international law. The court in a series of decisions since 2013 has restricted the law’s reach, making it more difficult to hold U.S. corporations legally liable for human rights abuses.

President Donald Trump’s administration sided with Cisco in the case.

Paul Hoffman, a lawyer for the Falun Gong plaintiffs, argued strenuously against Cisco’s views.

“Under Cisco’s theory, even the corporate actors who provided the poison gas for Nazi crematoria would not be liable” under the Alien Tort Statute, Hoffman told the justices.

Keep reading

Supreme Court rejects Florida parents’ challenge to school that ‘socially transitioned’ daughter

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal by Florida parents challenging school officials who withheld their child’s “social transition” from them under a since-rescinded policy.

In 2018, the Leon County School Board adopted a policy empowering schools to develop a “support plan” for students who wished to be treated as the opposite sex, including withholding the news from parents if a student did not want them to know. The policy was changed in 2022 after Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed Florida’s Parental Rights in Education law, but not before one pair of parents sued the school district for keeping them in the dark about “socially transitioning” their middle-school-age daughter.

CBS News reported that January and Jeffrey Littlejohn’s daughter, identified in court documents only as AG, had asked her parents to change her name and address her with male pronouns. They refused, allowing her only to adopt “J” as a nickname, so AG discussed her gender confusion with a school counselor. A “support plan,” complete with preferred name and pronouns, was established, but the Littlejohns were not notified until their daughter told them herself.

The parents sued in 2021 but lost through multiple appeals, based largely on the conclusion that the 2022 policy change rendered the issue moot. They had sought damages on the grounds that it was the school’s “course of conduct, not the contents” of the 2018 plan that were at issue.

So the Littlejohns appealed to the nation’s highest court, but Monday’s order list confirmed their petition has been denied without elaboration. How individual justices voted was not listed, but CBS noted that Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas previously urged the Court to resolve similar questions, indicating they most likely would have taken the case. If true, that would mean that all six remaining justices voted to deny the petition, as only four votes are necessary to hear a case.

The indoctrination of children with left-wing ideology on sexuality, race, and other agenda items has long been a major concern in American public schools and libraries, from book shelves to drag events to classroom materials to even “transitioning” troubled children without parental input. Many schools have also displayed hostility to the rights and employment of individual teachers who refuse to go along with such agendas. Across the nation, controversy has also erupted in recent years over schools and libraries adopting books that expose sexual themes and activity to children, often in graphic detail and with pornographic imagery depicting specific sexual acts.

Keep reading

Supreme Court To Review Geofencing In Pivotal Case For Privacy Rights

The Supreme Court on April 27 will hear oral arguments in a case with major implications for privacy rights—and how law enforcement uses Americans’ cell phone data while investigating crimes.

The case, Chatrie v. United States, centers on law enforcement’s use of “geofencing warrants”—judge-authorized requests for cell phone location data near the scene of a crime.

Okello Chatrie told the Supreme Court that the government’s use of these warrants, which resulted in a criminal conviction over his robbing a bank while his smart phone was on his person, violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The government, meanwhile, has argued that such data is not protected when provided voluntarily to a “third party” like Google.

The court said it would focus on the circumstances of Chatrie’s case rather than the constitutionality of geofencing more generally. However, experts say that the Supreme Court’s decision will reverberate through future cases concerning privacy in the digital age.

Dr. David Super, a professor of law at the Georgetown University Law Center, described the case to The Epoch Times as “once-in-a-generation,” whatever the outcome.

Chatrie’s Warrant

In 2019, law enforcement received a geofence warrant from a state court seeking anonymized location data for devices within 150 meters (about 500 feet) of the bank robbery. In this form, the data couldn’t be used to identify specific cellphone users.

After Google complied with the first request, law enforcement then sought location data for devices over a longer, two-hour period, without seeking an additional court warrant. Google again provided the information.

Then—still without seeking a warrant—investigators asked Google for “de-anonymized subscriber information for three devices,” and Google complied.

One of those devices belonged to Chatrie, and the information provided the basis for Chatrie’s eventual conviction for armed robbery.

Though Chatrie confessed, his lawyers argue that the geofencing evidence should be tossed because the warrant deprived him of his Fourth Amendment rights, which guarantees that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.”

Chatrie’s lawyers argued that the geofence warrant allowed investigators to gather the location history of people who were near the scene of the crime even though there was no other probable cause.

Super told The Epoch Times that geofencing was “pivotal” to the case against Chatrie. “The question in Chatrie is whether something as dramatic as a geofencing search is limited by the Fourth Amendment and requires the government to show specific needs with a proper basis,” he said.

Keep reading

“You Don’t Have the Right to Say Climate Change is a Hoax!”- Purple-Haired Democrat LOSES IT as Lee Zeldin Schools Her on Two Landmark Supreme Court Cases

Congress’s purple-haired congresswoman had a near-complete meltdown after EPA administrator Lee Zeldin completely embarrassed her during an an exchange on ‘climate change’ and the law.

On Monday, Zeldin testified before the House Appropriations Committee regarding President Trump’s 2027 budget request. As The Washington Examiner notes, the proposed budget would cut the agency’s budget in half if approved by Congress.

During the hearing, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) angrily attacked Zeldin for “appeasing polluters” and ignoring Americans under “the false flag of economic growth.”

Zeldin responded by explaining that he’s following the law, pointing out that it says nothing about fighting climate change.

Then, he asked DeLauro if she was familiar with the Loper Bright Supreme Court case.

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo is a landmark Supreme Court case in 2024 which overturned the long-standing Chevron doctrine, fundamentally altering the balance of power between the judiciary and federal agencies.

The Chevron doctrine, established in the 1984 case Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, has long been a source of contention. It granted deference to federal agencies in interpreting ambiguous statutes, effectively allowing unelected bureaucrats to make laws through their regulatory actions.

However, by a 6-3 majority, SCOTUS declared that such power is unconstitutional and goes against the principles of democratic governance.

DeLauro had no clue what Zeldin was talking about and went berserk:

“You do not, excuse, you don’t have the right to say climate change does not exist, that it’s a hoax!” she yelled at the EPA Administrator.

The exchange got even worse for DeLauro when Zeldin exposed her for not knowing about another landmark Supreme Court decision: West Virginia Vs. EPA.

In this 2022 case, The Court determined by a 6-3 margin that Congress did not authorize the EPA to compel existing power plants to combat climate change using the Clean Air Act, thereby curbing the agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from them.

All DeLauro could do was yell at Zeldin and finally snapped completely by saying, “I don’t have to listen to this BS!”

Keep reading

The United States of America v. John Roberts

The Supreme Court is under attack. It has been under attack for years, almost exclusively from the left. And by “under attack,” I don’t mean the peaceful criticism. I mean everything from challenges to its legitimacy to outright ignoring its rulings to death threats against conservative justices.

This began years ago. Chief Justice John Roberts initially responded by trying to stay apolitical and by trying to ignore the criticism. When President Barack Obama called him out during his 2010 State of the Union address, Roberts called the stunt “very troubling.” In the last two decades, that has been the entire extent of his pushback against the left.

In the last couple years, leftist district judges and leftist federal judges issue decrees and stays that directly contradict recent rulings from the Supreme Court itself. Last August, Justices Brett Kavanaugh Neil Gorsuch also publicly rebuked lower courts for having to reverse orders from lower courts regarding issues that the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) had already addressed. But not by Roberts.

Last September, a group of anonymous federal judges criticized recent emergency stays that SCOTUS granted. In interviews with NBC News, these judges said such rulings imply that the lower courts are doing shoddy work (yes, that’s the point). One judge quipped, “It’s inexcusable. They don’t have our backs.” Far be it from me to explain to this judge that the job of SCOTUS is not to “have their backs.” It’s John Roberts’ job to explain this to them. And yet, nary a peep.

District Judge Brian Murphy has twice openly flouted SCOTUS decisions. For his obstinacy, Justice Elena Kagan, of all people, publicly rebuked him. But still nothing from Roberts.

Then there is the internal drama.

It burst into the open with the Dobbs decision, which the liberal justices deliberately slow-rolled in an attempt to stave off the inevitable. The problem arises because no SCOTUS decision is binding until the justices’ opinions are finalized and publicized. If a justice happens to die in the interim, then that justice’s vote is nullified.

This rule applies even if a justice dies from assassination. Like, you know, what almost happened to Brett Kavanaugh in June 2022. An armed suspect showed up outside his home, and his presence was made known to the authorities only because the suspect got cold feet and called the police and turned himself in.

Keep reading

Trump Says His Supreme Court Picks Misrepresented Their Ideology

President Donald Trump on April 21 criticized recent Supreme Court decisions and said some of the justices he nominated “misrepresented” themselves during the confirmation process. 

“I put certain people on the United States Supreme Court who totally misrepresented who they were, and the true ideology for which they stand!” Trump said in a post on Truth Social.

Trump’s comments came amid escalating tension between him and the court, which has seen a large number of cases challenging his second-term policies.

In February, two of the justices he appointed—Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch—joined a 6–3 majority that struck down his global tariffs.

Trump has since criticized those justices.

In a post on April 22, Trump said the court’s decision would “cost America massive amounts of money but, more importantly, it will cost America its DIGNITY!”

That majority decision was formed by Barrett, Gorsuch, Chief Justice John Roberts, and the three liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one of Trump’s nominees from his first term, penned a dissent, while Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito also opposed the decision.

On TruthSocial, Trump said that some of the “Democrat Justices” are known to “stick together like glue,” which the president said he respected.

“Certain Republican Appointees let the Democrats push them around, always wanting to be popular, politically correct, or even worse, wanting to show how ‘independent’ they are, with very little loyalty to the man who appointed them or, more importantly, the ideology from which they came to be Nominated and Confirmed,” he said.

At the end of the month, the court is expected to hear challenges to the Trump administration’s termination of temporary protected status for certain migrants.

It also recently heard a challenge to Trump’s order limiting birthright citizenship.

Trump attended the oral arguments, which were widely viewed as indicating that the court would rule against him.

On social media, the president asked how Democrats could “not like” how the Supreme Court votes, again citing concern about the outcome of the birthright citizenship case.

“It was meant for the babies of slaves, not for the babies of Chinese Billionaires. No, certain ‘Republican’ Justices have just gone weak,” Trump said. 

He also criticized the way the Supreme Court handled tariff refunds in its decision.

Its handling was “unexplainable” and an “unnecessary and expensive slap in the face to the U.S.A,” he said.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Declines Appeal in Andrew Cuomo’s COVID Nursing Home Lawsuit

The Supreme Court of the United States has declined to hear a wrongful death lawsuit filed against former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, effectively ending a legal challenge tied to the state’s COVID-era nursing home policies, as reported by Fox News.

The case was brought by Brooklyn resident Daniel Arbeeny, who alleged that Cuomo’s pandemic directives contributed to the 2020 death of his father, Norman Arbeeny, at age 89. The elder Arbeeny had been released from a Cobble Hill nursing home where COVID-positive patients had been housed.

According to court records, Arbeeny sued Cuomo and then-health commissioner Howard Zucker under federal civil rights law and a state wrongful death statute. The lawsuit argued that policies requiring nursing homes to accept patients returning from hospitals, regardless of COVID-19 status, played a role in fatalities among vulnerable residents.

A lower federal court dismissed the case on qualified immunity grounds, a legal doctrine that generally protects government officials from liability for actions taken in their official roles. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that dismissal, and the Supreme Court’s decision not to take the case leaves those rulings in place.

Keep reading

Justice Jackson Takes Aim at Fellow Justices, and the Results Aren’t Pretty

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is distinguishing herself on the U.S. Supreme Court — and not in a positive way. It’s as though she’s positioned on an island defined by woke ideology, racial justice, and equity, while the other eight justices remain on the mainland of restraint.

For proper context, it’s important to know about a case that was in front of her and the other members of the court.

The case centered on an early morning police stop in Washington, D.C., where a Metropolitan Police officer responded to a call about what was described as a suspicious vehicle. At around 2 a.m., the officer approached the car, and immediately—without any further provocation—two individuals fled the vehicle. A third person remained inside with the door open. That individual, identified only as J.W., slowly backed the car out of the parking lot.

The officer ordered the driver to put his hands up while drawing his service weapon.

The lower court, in this case the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (DCCA), ruled that the officer stopped R.W. without reasonable suspicion and concluded that this violated the Fourth Amendment. That amendment states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Supreme Court heard the case and reversed the DCCA’s ruling in a 7-2 decision. Leftist Justice Elena Kagan joined the majority. Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson were in the minority on this one, though Sotomayor said she would not have agreed to hear the case.

In the end, the majority on the court upheld law enforcement’s authority to make a stop based on “the totality of the circumstances” involved.

Now that you have the context, let’s turn to one of our foremost legal minds, none other than Jonathan Turley, to lay it out with clarity. On the X platform, Turley posted, “Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has issued another sole stinging dissent…Jackson wrote that ‘I cannot fathom’ how the seven justices could second-guess the lower court in rejecting the police claims. She accused her colleagues of mere ‘wordsmithing.’”

Keep reading

Supreme Court Rejects Massachusetts Case Over Hiding Student’s Gender Identity

Supreme Court justices on April 20 declined to take up a case involving a Massachusetts schoolgirl whose parents say officials wrongly hid their daughter’s purported identity as a male from them.

At least six of the nine justices declined to accept a petition to rehear a lower court verdict in the case, which was brought by the girl’s parents in 2022 against the Ludlow, Massachusetts, school district.

The vote count on the petition and how each justice voted were not disclosed, nor were any comments offered by the justices.

“Today’s denial by the Supreme Court is a missed opportunity to defend parental rights,” Jim Campbell, chief legal counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, who was helping represent the parents, told The Epoch Times in an email.

“Social transition, including going by inaccurate or nonbinary pronouns and a different name, is a major intervention in a child’s life that puts the child on a difficult-to-escape pathway to medicalized transition, carrying the risk of life-altering damage. No school district should make important mental health decisions on behalf of parents and conceal those decisions from them, especially in opposition to the mental-health care that those parents have chosen for their children.”

An attorney representing the school officials did not return a request for comment by publication time.

Keep reading

REPORT: The Latest ‘Shadow Docket’ Scandal Proves Between the Justices and Legacy Media, SCOTUS Is Toast

This week seems to be rife with journalistic malpractice from outlets either running with leaked and unsubstantiated material that tries and fails to put Trump administration officials in a bad light or works to erode and undermine our nation’s institutional bodies of governance. 

The latest installment from The New York Times involves leaked memos from the United States Supreme Court, verified by more anonymous sources. 

The Times spoke to 10 people, liberals and conservatives, who were familiar with the deliberations over the pivotal emergency order and who spoke on the condition of anonymity because confidentiality was a condition of their employment.

Amazing how one can fail so spectacularly on this basic tenet of integrity. God help us.

The papers expose what critics have called the weakness at the heart of the shadow docket: an absence of the kind of rigorous debate that the justices devote to their normal cases.

After obtaining the papers, The Times confirmed their authenticity with several people familiar with the deliberations and shared them with a spokeswoman for the court. The Times posed detailed questions to the justices who wrote the memos; they did not respond.

Nor should they. 

As RedState reported in February, Chief Justice Roberts took action to secure the integrity of the court’s processes after the 2022 leak of the draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health. Two months later, if this latest tranche of leaked memos is any indication, it hasn’t worked. Between justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson publicly criticizing their constitutionalist colleagues, and the legacy media’s breathlessly publishing unsourced and leaked material, soon there will not be a Supreme Court left to preserve.

Keep reading