Tag: scotus

DOJ Opens Investigation into Chuck Schumer For Threatening Supreme Court Justices

The Department of Justice has opened an investigation into Chuck Schumer for threatening Supreme Court justices.

According to The Washington Post, interim D.C. U.S. attorney Edward R. Martin, Jr. is looking to scrutinize Democratic leaders and former Justice Department officials.

Among them is the Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer in connection with comments regarding Trump’s Supreme Court justices, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

During a pro-abortion rally back in 2020, Schumer said that the two justices would “pay the price” for overturning Roe vs Wade, a decision that they eventually handed down two years later.

“I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price,” Schumer said at the time.

”You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

Keep reading

There Is No Such Thing as “Settled Law”

Much of the debate over so-called “birthright citizenship” is over interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US constitution. Most of the people currently in power claim that the text means every baby born to every foreign national on American soil is an automatic US citizen. Others—like myself—believe that this interpretation is dubious and has always been a matter of debate.

In commentary on this topic, however, one often encounters assertions to the effect that rulings by the US Supreme Court provide the “definitive” or “final” interpretation. Or, put another way, there is an idea that once SCOTUS makes a ruling on something, then the ruling is “settled law.” Even worse, some people think that once the Supreme Court has ruled on something, there is no point discussing it or challenging the currently popular interpretation of the law.

In truth, there is no such thing as settled law and the US Supreme court’s interpretations are hardly definitive. In politics nothing is ever settled or permanent. No cause is ever won or lost permanently. Beyond the short term, everything is up for grabs.

Keep reading

The FBI Wrongly Raided This Family’s Home. Now the Supreme Court Will Hear Their Case.

When asked about the evening the FBI mistakenly broke into her home, detonating a flash grenade in the house and ripping her door from its hinges, Curtrina Martin struggles to find a way to describe what that does to a person. “I don’t know if there is a proper word that I can use,” she told me last year.

The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will evaluate whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled correctly when it barred Martin from suing over that nightmare scenario—a case that has attracted bipartisan attention from Congress.

In October 2017, the FBI arrived at Martin’s house, which she shared with her then-fiancé, Hilliard Toi Cliatt, and her 7-year-old son, Gabe. The agents were searching for a man named Joseph Riley, who lived approximately one block over. After law enforcement found Martin and Cliatt hiding in the closet, police dragged Cliatt out and handcuffed him, while another officer screamed and pointed his gun at Martin, who says she fell on a rack in the chaos.

A panel for the 11th Circuit wrote that the two structures “share several conspicuous features.” For example, they are “beige in color” and have “a large tree in the front.” Since it was dark outside, the judges said, it would have been “difficult to ascertain the house numbers on the mailboxes.” Lawrence Guerra, who led the raid, thus received immunity.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Allows Law Requiring Small Businesses To Report Ownership Information

The U.S. Supreme Court voted 8–1 on Jan. 23 to allow the federal government to enforce an anti-money laundering law that a lower court blocked late last year.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the new ruling.

The statute at issue, the federal Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), required millions of business entities to file information returns about their owners by Jan. 1, 2025.

An estimated 33 million small businesses face fines of as much as $591 per day should they fail to comply with the new rule, according to.a Treasury website.

Businesses with upwards of 20 employees, $5 million in annual sales, and a U.S. office qualify for exemptions from CTA reporting requirements.

The law provides that affected corporate entities must file reports with the federal government about their beneficial owners, which means individuals with substantial control over the entity or who own or control 25 percent of the entity.

Entities are required to provide the government with the names of their beneficial owners, along with their birthdates, addresses, and identifying information such as passport or driver’s license numbers.

The CTA’s reporting requirement was put on hold on Dec. 5, 2024, when the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas sided with challengers, granting a nationwide preliminary injunction—also known as a universal injunction—against the CTA.

The court found that the challengers would likely succeed with their claim that the act was unconstitutional.

On Dec. 13, 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice, acting on behalf of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), a federal agency, asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to stay the injunction.

The agency argued the law was constitutional and that the challenge to it would probably fail in the end.

The circuit court’s motions panel granted the government’s request on Dec. 23, 2024, and suspended the injunction pending appeal. FinCEN then extended the filing deadline for corporate entities to Jan. 13, 2025.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Ruling: Accepting a Pardon is an “Admission of Guilt!”

A Presidential Pardon does not take effect unless the suspect accepts it. That according to a little known, 1915 ruling from the Supreme Court, once accepted, the pardon serves as an “imputation of guilt,” or what’s more commonly known as an admission. Because accepting the pardon is “essential to it’s validity,” I am demanding the Biden family, Dr. Fauci, Gen. Mark Milley, the members of the J6 Committee and everyone else Biden unsurprisingly pardoned declare their acceptance of the pardon publicly. Because, according to the Supreme Court, it would also serve as a declaration of guilt.

Keep reading

He Lost the Title to His Home Over a Small Property Tax Debt. Years Later, He’s Finally Getting It Back.

A Nebraska man whose house title was seized over a modest property tax debt has finally gotten it back, ending a yearslong legal battle that almost saw him lose his home and all of its value in excess of what he owed the government.

In 2014, Kevin Fair was unable to pay his $588 property tax bill after quitting his job to care for his dying wife, Terry, who had been diagnosed with a debilitating case of multiple sclerosis. The next year, the Scotts Bluff County government quietly sold that debt to a private investor, Continental Resources, which continued to satisfy the Fairs’ property taxes—until 2018, when the company sent the couple a bill for $5,268.

The family would have to pay that total—their tax debt, along with interest and fees—within 90 days, or lose their house. They would also lose all of their equity, even though their home was worth about $55,000 more than what they owed.

That was business as usual in Nebraska, which was one of many states engaging in legalized home equity theft. “People are shocked about how the law actually operates,” Jennifer Gaughan, chief of legal strategy at Legal Aid of Nebraska, told me in 2023. The law was indeed shocking: Local governments were permitted to sell tax debts to investors, without sending correspondence to the debtors. Three years later, as in the Fairs’ case, the investor would mail the property owner the new bill, which, of course, had grown substantially, with 14 percent interest and other fees. If the owner couldn’t pay within 90 days, then the county treasurer would give the title of the house to the investor, who would then take the home, sell it—and keep the change.

“It’s usually elderly people…people who own their homes outright who don’t have a mortgage, and there’s usually some kind of intervening situation,” said Gaughan. “It’s not just poverty. It’s illness, or something happens in their lives….And then they don’t have notice of it. And then [the home] is being taken.”

The Fairs sued, arguing that losing the equity in their house in excess of what they owed violated the 5th Amendment’s Takings Clause, which promises that the government cannot take private property “without just compensation.” The pair lost multiple times, including at the Nebraska Supreme Court. 

The U.S. Supreme Court considered the issue in 2023. The plaintiff in that case, an elderly woman named Geraldine Tyler, accrued a $2,300 property tax debt on her condo in Hennepin County, Minnesota, after some neighborhood incidents, including a nearby shooting, prompted her to move to a retirement community. Unable to finance both her rent and her debt—the total bill came to $15,000 with penalties, interest, and fees—the local government seized her condo, sold it for $40,000, and kept the $25,000 profit. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit ruled that was fine.

The high court’s justices unanimously disagreed. “A taxpayer who loses her $40,000 house to the State to fulfill a $15,000 tax debt has made a far greater contribution to the public fisc than she owed,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. “The taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, but no more.” Tyler was 94 years old when the decision came down.

With that ruling in mind, Nebraska’s top court reconsidered its previous decision and ruled that Fair would not have to sacrifice the additional equity in excess of his debt. Whether or not he would be able to retain his title, however, remained unclear, until late last month when he came to an amicable agreement with Continental Resources.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Justices ‘Sound Likely to Uphold TikTok Ban’

According to reports, the Supreme Court justices “sound likely” to uphold the TikTok ban, which is scheduled to go into effect on January 19.

President-elect Donald Trump has asked the Supreme Court to delay the ban, which will begin one day before his inauguration unless it is sold to a new non-Chinese owner.

TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, has indicated it is not open to a forced sale.

On Friday, the Supreme Court heard over two hours of arguments about whether banning the app would violate Americans’ freedom of speech.

The justices, including conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, seemed skeptical of the claims and said, “The law doesn’t say TikTok has to shut down. It says ByteDance has to (sell TikTok).”

“It doesn’t’ say, ‘TikTok, you can’t speak,’” liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson added, according to a New York Daily News report.

Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh appeared to accept that the ban is an effort to prevent Chinese indoctrination of young Americans.

“That seems like a huge concern for the future of the country,” Kavanaugh said.

Trump’s nominee to be solicitor general, John Sauer, filed an amicus brief with the court in December.

The brief argued, “President Trump is one of the most powerful, prolific, and influential users of social media in history.”

Keep reading

A SWAT Team Destroyed an Innocent Woman’s House. The Supreme Court Won’t Hear Her Case.

The Supreme Court last month declined to hear a case from an elderly woman whose house was destroyed by a SWAT team, leaving open the question of whether or not innocent people are constitutionally entitled to compensation when law enforcement lays waste to their property in pursuit of public safety.

In July 2020, while chasing a fugitive, police arrived at Vicki Baker’s home in McKinney, Texas. They threw dozens of tear gas grenades inside, used explosives to break the front and garage doors, and drove a tank through her backyard fence, although Baker’s daughter, Deanna Cook, had supplied them with a key to the home, a garage door opener, and the back gate code.

The suspect, Wesley Little, had previously worked for Baker as a handyman and barricaded himself inside her home while on the run from police. He had kidnapped a teenage girl, whom he released after the cops arrived. But Little himself refused to exit, prompting law enforcement to ravage the house. (He ultimately killed himself.)

Baker, who was in Montana when her house was destroyed, never contested that police acted in the best interest of the community when it sought to extract Little from her home. She took issue, however, with the subsequent response from the government, which refused to compensate her for the more than $50,000 in damages. Her homeowners insurance likewise declined to pay, as many policies explicitly do not cover damage caused by the government.

“I’ve lost everything,” she told me in 2021. “I’ve lost my chance to sell my house. I’ve lost my chance to retire without fear of how I’m going to make my regular bills.” Baker, who was undergoing treatment for stage 3 breast cancer when we spoke, had been preparing to retire with her husband in Montana. After the house was ruined, a buyer predictably withdrew. The government said she did not qualify as a “victim.”

She is not the only person with such a story. At the core of the case and those like hers is whether or not the Constitution legally obligates the government to repay people who are not suspected of criminal wrongdoing but whose property is nevertheless destroyed by police in an attempt to protect the community. The Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment promises that private property cannot be taken for public use “without just compensation,” though some lower courts have ruled that actions taken by police in stories like these operate under an exception to that rule.

Keep reading

‘Wildly Off-Base’: New Push for Supreme Court to Reverse Case That Allows Property Confiscation

Ruling denied ‘the core protections of individual citizens.’

The U.S. Supreme Court bizarrely ruled in 2005, in the Kelo case, that a government could take privately owned property from one owner to give it to another, just, well, just because.

That original ruling came down to dollars and cents, when the city of New London, New York, used eminent domain to confiscate a home belonging to Susan Kelo to give it to Pfizer for one of its business operations.

She sued, but the Supreme Court said a procedure to use eminent domain “to transfer land from private owner to another private owner” did not violate the Constitution.

Actually, the authority vested in eminent domain would be for purposes of taking property to build a highway, or some similar public benefit.

That New London scheme actually failed, as the company was unable to obtain financing for its plans, and the site remained an undeveloped empty lot.

The move already has prompted 47 states to strengthen their own eminent domain laws, and now it’s time for the national precedent to be reversed, according to constitutional lawyer Jonathan Turley, who not only has testified before Congress as an expert on the Constitution, but has represented members in court.

He said that one case, Kelo, “has long stood out for me as wildly off-base and wrongly decided.”

He explained, “There is now a petition before the Supreme Court that would allow it to reconsider this pernicious precedent. The court should grant review in Bowers v. Oneida County Industrial Development Agency precisely for that purpose,” he explained.

“Many of us expressed outrage at the actions of the city leaders of New London, Connecticut, when they used eminent domain to seize the property of citizens against their will to give it to the Pfizer corporation,” he said. “This anger grew with the inexplicable decision of the Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London to uphold the abusive action. After all the pain that the city caused its own residents and the $80 million it spent to buy and bulldoze the property, it came to nothing. Pfizer later announced that it was closing the facility — leaving the city worse off than when it began.”

He said the new case involves New York developer Bryan Bowers who challenged the decision of a county redevelopment agency to condemn his property and then give it to another developer to use as a private parking lot.

Turley noted that Justice Chase, shortly after the Bill of Rights was written, explained the injustice.

Keep reading

Federal Judge Violates Judicial Code While Lecturing Justice Alito on Ethics in New York Times Essay, Forced to Issue Apology for Misconduct

Senior U.S. District Judge Michael Ponsor of Massachusetts openly criticized Justice Samuel Alito’s ethics in a New York Times guest essay, violating the sacred trust of impartiality expected from the judiciary.

The conservative advocacy group, the Article III Project, filed a formal complaint against Ponsor, leading to a misconduct finding and a public apology from the senior judge.

The complaint, filed in May 2024, stemmed from an op-ed authored by Judge Ponsor and published in The New York Times.

The article discusses the controversy surrounding Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s display of an upside-down American flag and an “Appeal to Heaven” flag at his properties, which some media outlets tied to Trump supporters during the events of January 6, 2021. Ponsor declared the flags as symbols of partisanship and questioned Alito’s ethical judgment.

Despite lacking direct evidence of ethical violations or pending cases involving the flags, Ponsor’s essay implied that Alito’s actions warranted recusal from cases related to January 6, casting doubt on the Supreme Court justice’s impartiality.

“To me, the flag issue is much simpler. The fact is that, regardless of its legality, displaying the flag in that way, at that time, shouldn’t have happened. To put it bluntly, any judge with reasonable ethical instincts would have realized immediately that flying the flag then and in that way was improper. And dumb,” Ponsor wrote in the essay.

“The same goes for the flying of an “Appeal to Heaven” flag at Justice Alito’s vacation house along the New Jersey shore. Like the upside-down flag, this flag is viewed by a great many people as a banner of allegiance on partisan issues that are or could be before the court.”

Chief Judge Albert Diaz of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a scathing rebuke of Ponsor’s actions.

“The essay expressed personal opinions on controversial public issues and criticized the ethics of a sitting Supreme Court justice. Such comments diminish the public confidence in the integrity and independence of the federal judiciary in violation of Canons 1 and 2A.” said Diaz in the filed reply.

Keep reading