Tag: scotus

Supreme Court Orders CNN to Respond

We have a MAJOR DEVELOPMENT in our landmark case against CNN at the United States Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has just ordered CNN to file a formal response to our petition – the petition we filed to hold CNN and the mainstream media accountable for spreading falsehoods during President Donald Trump’s Senate impeachment trial, when they twisted and manipulated what a member of the president’s legal team actually argued. I know because I was there on the floor of the Senate when it happened.

When we filed our petition for writ of certiorari in this critical defamation case, CNN appeared to think it could simply ignore it. That’s a common tactic. If a party believes the Court isn’t likely to take a case, they can waive their response and hope the Justices quietly deny review.

That’s exactly what CNN tried to do.

Their strategy seemed simple: Don’t engage. Don’t draw attention to it. Let it die quietly.

But the Supreme Court didn’t let that happen. Instead, the Court stepped in and ordered CNN to respond – in writing.

That matters.

It doesn’t guarantee the Court will ultimately take the case. But it does signal that at least some of the Justices believe this issue deserves serious consideration.

And it should.

Keep reading

5 Takeaways From Supreme Court’s Rejection of Trump’s Global Tariffs

The Supreme Court on Feb. 20 struck down many of President Donald Trump’s tariffs, stating they violated an emergency powers law he invoked last year.

The president previously declared a national emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, saying the tariffs were needed to stem the flow of illegal drugs and to combat “large and persistent” trade deficits with foreign nations.

The act generally gives the president the power to regulate imports to address emergencies, but debate ensued over what that meant in practice.

Writing for the 6–3 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts rejected Trump’s arguments, saying that the law’s phrasing did not clearly authorize tariffs.

Tariffs enacted under other laws are not affected by the ruling.

Tariffs Not Authorized Under Emergency Law

Roberts said Trump rested his claim of tariff authority on the words “regulate” and “importation” in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which gives the president authority to act.

“The President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time,” Roberts said. “Those words cannot bear such weight.”

Keep reading

Media Silent On KBJ Attending Anti-ICE Grammys After Inventing ‘Scandals’ About Her Colleagues

America’s propaganda media have always applied two very different standards when judging the “ethics and conduct” of U.S. Supreme Court justices. While expending countless resources inventing nothingburger “scandals” of wrongdoing about the court’s originalists, these so-called “defenders of democracy” regularly go out of their way to glamorize the body’s leftist members — no matter how untoward or inappropriate their behavior may seem.

That’s the dynamic that was at play on Sunday evening, when Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson attended this year’s anti-ICE Grammy Awards. The Biden appointee made an appearance at the event following the nomination for “best audio book, narration and storytelling recording” for her 2024 memoir, according to USA Today.

While Jackson hobnobbed with Hollywood’s biggest snobs and received a favorable shoutout from host Trevor Noah, many of the night’s (overrated) winners used their acceptance speeches to give us their unwanted thoughts on something they know little to nothing about — immigration enforcement. From expletive-laden comments (“f-ck ICE”) to embarrassing “land acknowledgements,” the leftist-led attacks on lawful efforts to deport illegal aliens (including rapists and other violent criminals) were everything one would expect.

And yet, despite this overwhelming display of uber left-wing partisanship, as of Monday morning, there are no legacy media outlets or major Democrats expressing outrage about Jackson’s Grammy attendance. The same righteous “truth tellers” who were supposedly so concerned about non-scandals like Justice Sam Alito’s wife flying an Appeal to Heaven flag or Justice Clarence Thomas having a rich friend now have nothing to say when Jackson attends an overtly partisan event whose attendees expressed extreme hostility to federal law enforcement.

There are no leftist calls to impeach Jackson. Nor are there any demands for her to recuse herself from immigration-related cases involving the Trump administration — several of which are before the court this term.

The left’s outrage machine is dead silent.

Keep reading

SCOTUS Decision On Mail-In Voting Rules Could Shape Future Elections

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 last week that Rep. Michael Bost, an Illinois Republican, has legal standing to challenge an Illinois election law that allows mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be received and counted for up to two weeks afterward, a decision that could shape how voting rules are litigated in future elections.

The case does not decide whether Illinois’ receipt deadline is lawful. Instead, the court revived Bost’s lawsuit and sent it back to lower courts to consider the merits.

Illinois law requires election officials to count mail-in ballots postmarked or certified no later than Election Day and received within two weeks of Election Day. Bost and two other candidates sued in 2022, arguing that counting ballots after Election Day conflicts with federal statutes that set a uniform day for federal elections.

Lower courts dismissed the lawsuit on standing grounds, concluding the plaintiffs had not shown a sufficiently direct injury. The Seventh Circuit, for example, pointed to Bost’s past electoral performance and treated alleged campaign costs tied to monitoring late-arriving ballots as voluntary steps taken to avoid a hypothetical harm.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, rejected that approach and held that candidates have a personal stake in vote-counting rules in their own elections. The opinion said an unlawful election rule can harm a candidate in multiple ways, but went further by recognizing an additional interest in “a fair process,” even apart from whether a rule changes the outcome.

In the court’s view, candidates are uniquely affected when the rules for counting votes depart from what the law requires, because the integrity of the process is tied to the legitimacy of whoever wins. The opinion also pointed to the practical consequences of forcing disputes to the last minute, warning that waiting until just before Election Day, or after ballots are counted, risks voter confusion and instability if courts step in too late.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett concurred in the judgment, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, but argued the case should be resolved using a more traditional standing theory. Barrett said Bost had standing because he alleged “pocketbook” harm from added campaign expenses tied to monitoring late-arriving ballots, rather than standing based simply on his status as a candidate.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, arguing the majority’s approach weakens the court’s usual requirement that plaintiffs show a concrete, particularized injury. In her view, an interest in election fairness is broadly shared, and the court’s ruling could invite more candidate-filed lawsuits over election administration rules.

The immediate impact may be procedural but significant: by lowering the barrier to getting into federal court, the ruling could increase pre-election challenges to rules governing vote counting and ballot deadlines, including disputes over how long ballots can arrive after Election Day and still be counted. The decision could also steer litigation earlier in the calendar, rather than after close races, because candidates can sue without proving a substantial risk of losing.

Keep reading

Justice Jackson Cites Racist ‘Black Codes’ As Precedent To Justify Gun Control In Hawaii

During oral arguments in Wolford v. Lopez, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested that the post-Civil War “Black Codes” – a set of openly racist laws enacted in the Democrat-controlled South to strip newly freed Black Americans of basic rights, including the right to possess firearms – could serve as legitimate historical precedent under the Supreme Court’s Bruen test. That test evaluates modern gun laws by asking whether similar restrictions were accepted in the nation’s historical tradition. The case concerns a Hawaii law that bars licensed gun owners from carrying firearms onto privately owned property open to the public. Jackson relying on the Black Codes for constitutional guidance is hilarious, as those laws were explicitly designed to deny civil rights to Black Americans in defiance of emancipation.

The exchange unfolded as Justice Jackson pressed U.S. Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris on why post–Civil War Black Codes should be excluded from consideration when courts examine modern-day gun control laws. Hawaii relied on a 1865 Louisiana statute as historical support for its law, a statute even Neal Katyal, the lawyer representing Hawaii, admitted was “undoubtedly a relic of a shameful portion of American history.”

“So, I guess I really don’t understand your response to Justice Gorsuch on the Black Codes,” Jackson began. She explained that, under Bruen, courts are required to look to history and tradition to assess constitutionality. “The fact that the Black Codes were, at some later point, determined themselves to be unconstitutional doesn’t seem to me to be relevant to the assessment that Bruen is asking us to make.”

Harris responded by emphasizing the fundamentally racist purpose of those laws. “Black Codes were unconstitutional from the moment of their inception because they are pretextual laws that are designed to ensure that newly freed slaves are returned to a condition of sharecropping.”

Justice Jackson, a black woman, immediately pushed back. “Okay, let me stop you there. They were not deemed unconstitutional at the time that they were enacted,” she said. “They were part of the history and tradition of the country, and when we have a test now that’s asking us to look at what people were doing back then, I don’t understand why they should be excluded.”

Harris reiterated that point. “Because they are outliers. They are, by definition, unconstitutional. They have always been unconstitutional.”

Jackson bizarrely remained unconvinced. “Found later, afterwards, not at the time,” she said, returning to the Bruen framework. “And if the test says what’s happening at the time tells us what’s constitutional for this purpose, why aren’t they in?”

Harris responded by insisting the laws should be disregarded because they were aberrations and unconstitutional from their inception.

But Jackson rejected that framing. She argued that their unconstitutionality was determined later, not contemporaneously, making it a legitimate precedent. And, according to Jackson, if the test looks to historical practice at the time of enactment, she asked, why should those laws be left out?

Harris attempted to explain how a law could be unconstitutional from inception, while still accounting for historical analysis. Jackson claimed that Harris’s position effectively dismissed history altogether. When Harris denied that implication, Jackson underscored the contradiction by noting that history either matters under Bruen or it does not.

Harris then stressed that historical inquiry remains essential, though not indiscriminate. “We should deeply care about the history,” she said, adding that Bruen requires courts to identify a genuine national tradition by excluding aberrations. She described the Black Codes as precisely that — laws enacted “for the purpose of trying to reduce newly freed slaves back to conditions of servitude,” including measures that criminalized carrying arms on private property. “Those are obvious outliers which should not count under the whole point of Bruen.”

Keep reading

Supreme Court Poised to Grant Chemical Warfare Immunity: How Glyphosate Legal Shield Would Poison American Justice

Introduction: The Supreme Court’s Glyphosate Gamble: Corporate Immunity Over Human Life

The U.S. Supreme Court has stepped onto a dangerous precipice, agreeing to hear a case that could grant chemical manufacturers a staggering new power: blanket immunity from lawsuits for poisoning the American people. Agro-chemical giant Bayer, owner of Monsanto, is appealing a $1.25 million Missouri jury verdict, arguing that because federal regulators claim its flagship weedkiller Roundup is safe, the company should be shielded from all state-level failure-to-warn lawsuits brought by cancer victims. A ruling in Bayer’s favor would dismantle legal recourse for thousands of citizens and establish a perilous precedent where captured federal agencies, not independent science or juries, dictate corporate accountability for public harm. This case represents nothing less than a corporate coup against the constitutional right to a trial by jury, placing profits above the sanctity of human life.

The Glyphosate Deception: A Chemical Assault on Human Health

At the heart of this legal battle is glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup and the most heavily used herbicide in the world, with approximately 300 million pounds applied annually in the United States alone. For decades, Monsanto marketed Roundup as safe for humans and animals, a claim now exposed as a profound deception by a mountain of independent research.

Despite the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) repeated assertions that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic,” science tells a horrifically different story. A major 2025 international carcinogenicity study found that low doses of glyphosate-based herbicides cause multiple types of cancer in rats, with tumors appearing in blood, skin, liver, and other organs even at levels regulators consider safe. This research adds to a substantial body of evidence linking glyphosate exposure to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and other chronic diseases in humans. As investigative journalist Carey Gillam notes in her book, the truth about such public health dangers often only emerges through “lawyers, lawsuits, journalists, and the occasional whistleblower” when regulators fail. The EPA’s fraudulent safety claims stand in direct contradiction to this independent science, blessing a chemical poison while natural, non-toxic agricultural solutions are suppressed and ignored.

Corporate Capture: How Regulatory Agencies Betray the Public Trust

Bayer’s legal strategy hinges on a doctrine known as federal preemption, which posits that federal regulatory approval should override state-level consumer protection laws and common-law tort claims. This argument reveals the deep and dangerous corruption of federal health agencies, which now serve as puppets for the very industries they are supposed to regulate.

This phenomenon, known as regulatory capture, is systemic. As Robert F. Kennedy Jr. explains in his work on corporate influence, agencies like the FDA become “sock puppets” for Big Pharma and chemical interests, with a significant portion of their budgets coming from the companies they oversee. The glyphosate case is a textbook example. The EPA has consistently parroted the industry line on glyphosate’s safety, ignoring robust independent evidence of carcinogenicity. This betrayal was further underscored when the Trump administration’s Solicitor General, in a December legal brief, urged the Supreme Court to take Bayer’s side, arguing that a manufacturer “should not be left subject to 50 different labeling regimes.

This move represents a blatant political manipulation of the justice system to insulate a powerful corporation from accountability. If the Court rules for Bayer, it would effectively nullify state-level consumer protections and constitutional rights, centralizing power in the hands of a corrupted federal bureaucracy. As a NaturalNews.com report on the case warns, this gambit “silences victims and overrides the rule of law,” completing the transformation of public health agencies into immunity-granting enablers of corporate malfeasance.

Keep reading

Top US court to review suit against German chemicals giant

The US Supreme Court will hear an appeal by German chemical company Bayer on a Roundup-related case in which a man was awarded $1.25 million, claiming the herbicide gave him blood cancer.

The court made the announcement regarding Monsanto Co. v. Durnell in a statement on Friday, with a verdict expected by July. Bayer is currently facing thousands of similar lawsuits.

Roundup originally belonged to the now-defunct American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation Monsanto, which was purchased by Bayer in 2018.

At the heart of the case is whether Bayer and other manufacturers should be held liable if they comply with the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) rulings on product warnings, while still running afoul of state laws requiring warnings on goods that may be carcinogenic.

Bayer argues that the EPA has determined that glyphosate, the main component of the controversial herbicide, is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans, and approved Roundup labels without cancer warnings.

In a statement on Friday, Bayer CEO Bill Anderson said that “it is time for the US legal system to establish that companies should not be punished under state laws for complying with federal warning label requirements.”

Keep reading

Justice Jackson Outdoes Herself With Complete Nonsense Of An Opinion

Leave it to the woman who doesn’t know what a woman is to decide if men belong in women’s sports. 

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stumbled through oral argument Tuesday in the case of West Virginia v. B.P.J. The case concerns “[w]hether Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prevents a state from consistently designating girls’ and boys’ sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth,” and “whether the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment prevents a state from offering separate boys’ and girls’ sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth,” according to SCOTUSblog. 

Biological sex is indeed “determined,” as in, “ascertained,” not “assigned.” 

Jackson described her understanding of the issue at hand to West Virginia Solicitor General Michael Williams. 

“You have the overarching classification, you know, everybody has to be, um, uh, play on the team that is the same as their sex at birth, um, but then you have a gender identity definition that is operating within that, meaning, a distinction, meaning that um, for, uh, cisgender girls they can play consistent with their gender identity, for transgender girls, they can’t,” said Jackson. 

Jackson distinguishes between “sex” and “gender identity” as though the latter is a category deserving of equal consideration. “Gender identity” only means “a particular feeling I have about myself.” If that feeling leads one to make unreasonable demands, it is perfectly reasonable to toss those demands in the trash. 

Keep reading

Supreme Court Blocks Trump’s Deployment of National Guard to Chicago

The U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 23 ruled that President Donald Trump may not deploy National Guard troops to Chicago to protect federal immigration agents for the time being.

“At this preliminary stage, the government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois,” the court said in an unsigned order.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch filed dissenting opinions.

The new ruling could undermine Trump’s arguments for deploying the National Guard in other locations throughout the country.

On Oct. 29, the high court delayed ruling on whether the Trump administration’s deployment of National Guard troops in Chicago was lawful.

Instead, the justices directed attorneys for the Trump administration, the state of Illinois, and the city of Chicago to address what the term “regular forces” means in a federal law that allows the president to take command of state National Guard troops.

Keep reading

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