Tag: scotus

Supreme Court hands Trump a win in bid to prevent ineligible voters voting in midterm elections

The Supreme Court on Monday opened the door for President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at securing the upcoming midterm elections from ineligible voters and implementing verification standards for mail-in ballots. 

The high court halted a lower court ruling that was blocking the president’s March 31 executive order establishing a whole-of-government approach to prevent noncitizens from registering to vote or voting in federal elections. A coalition of 23 Democratic states and Washington, D.C., sued the administration in Massachusetts to block the order. 

The lower court’s ruling by District Court Judge Indira Talwani in June specifically blocked parts of the executive order directing federal prosecutors to focus on prosecuting any state and local officials who facilitate ineligible voting and instructing the U.S. Postal Service to establish verification standards for mail-in ballots, including a unique barcode. 

While the Supreme Court’s August 24 decision lifts the injunction in California v. Trump, the lawsuit brought by a coalition of 23 states and D.C., the administration still faces a separate nationwide legal barrier. 

A second, active preliminary injunction issued by Judge Talwani in August in League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump continues to block the Postal Service from implementing the changes mandated by the executive order for the upcoming election. 

So, while the Supreme Court has cleared the path for the administration to proceed with certain aspects of the order, significant legal hurdles remain regarding the Postal Service’s implementation before the November midterm elections.

The executive order directed the Department of Homeland Security to create a nationwide list of adult U.S. citizens and the USPS to obtain lists of registered voters. The USPS, an independent agency of the executive branch, would then be required to send mail-in ballots only to individuals on both of those lists.  

The Supreme Court’s conservative justices determined, however, that the District Court “lacked jurisdiction to enter the judgment” and that the stay on the executive order does harm to the government’s legitimate functions of rulemaking and executive prosecutorial discretion, according to the high court’s per curiam opinion published Monday.   

The ruling allows the Trump administration to proceed with its two-pronged effort, through the Postal Service, to ensure that no non-eligible voters cast votes in the upcoming midterms and, through the Justice Department, that those who facilitate such alleged illegal voting will be pursued by prosecutors. 

Since early absentee voting in many states is just weeks away, the Trump administration would have to move quickly to implement the order’s provisions, which could still face further legal challenges. 

As the midterms approach, President Trump has aimed to ensure that no ineligible voters cast votes. In recent months, emerging evidence shows that potentially hundreds of thousands of noncitizens are registered to vote across the country and some have voted in recent elections. 

Keep reading

Leftist Obama Judge Indira Talwani Goes Completely ROGUE – Spits in the Face of the Supreme Court and Rules Trump’s U.S. Postal Service is in “Complete Noncompliance” With Her Block on Mail-In Ballot Security Rules

Obama-appointed U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani escalated her war against President Donald Trump’s election-integrity agenda Tuesday, declaring that the U.S. Postal Service violated her nationwide injunction by completing new security regulations for federal mail-in ballots.

Just one day after the United States Supreme Court UPHELD, for now, President Trump’s executive order and the new U.S. Postal Service rules designed to secure America’s mail-in ballots, this Obama-appointed radical in Boston just ruled that Trump’s Postal Service has VIOLATED her earlier injunction.

She’s going off. Aggressively. Accusing the Trump team of “complete noncompliance.”

This is pure judicial warfare against the American people and against free and fair elections.

Talwani’s nationwide injunction (entered earlier this month in League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump) explicitly barred the USPS Defendants “from implementing, giving effect to, or enforcing Section 3 of Executive Order No. 14399… or otherwise initiating or completing rulemaking to promulgate the specific regulations outlined in Section 3(b)(i)-(v) or (d) of the EO for the November 3, 2026 or any earlier election.”

On Friday evening, August 21, the USPS completed the rulemaking process. They sent a Final Rule titled “Ballot Mail for Federal Elections” to the Office of the Federal Register, with an immediate effective date of August 21 and publication set for August 26.

The Final Rule itself nods to the injunctions and states the Postal Service “will not take actions to implement the rule specifically for the 2026 election unless and until the government obtains relief from those injunctions.”

Keep reading

Battle Over Ten Commandments Arrives At Supreme Court

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Aug. 17 to review a federal appeals court decision that upheld a Texas law requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit cleared the way in April for the Texas law to take effect.

The state law known as Senate Bill 10, or SB 10, requires that public elementary and secondary schools conspicuously display in classrooms an easily readable poster or framed copy of the Ten Commandments with no additional commentary.

The Fifth Circuit’s 9–8 ruling in Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District raised questions about freedom of religion and how the Supreme Court had ruled on these issues in the past. If the justices agree to hear the case, their potentially landmark ruling could change the legal landscape for how governments deal with religion.

The Fifth Circuit said that the law complied with the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

The Texas law “looks nothing like a historical religious establishment,” because it does not tell houses of worship what to believe, how to worship, or whom to employ, the appeals court said. It does not punish people who reject the Ten Commandments, impose taxes to support the clergy, or require churches to carry out civic functions, the court said.

“These are the kinds of things ‘establishments of religion’ did at the founding. [The Texas law] does none of them,” it said.

The Fifth Circuit also held that a 1980 precedent, Stone v. Graham, which struck down a nearly identical classroom display law, is no longer binding.

The circuit court ruling upholding the Texas statute came after a federal district court preliminarily blocked it, finding the law likely violates both the Constitution’s establishment clause, which forbids the government from favoring one religion over another, and the free exercise clause, which prohibits the government from infringing on worship and other activities. The district judge also found the displays would coerce students and interfere with parents’ rights to direct their children’s religious upbringing.

The challenge in the district court was brought by a group of Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Baha’i, Unitarian Universalist, and nonreligious families. The families argue in the petition that the Texas law violates the Constitution by forcing religion on students, and that the Fifth Circuit misinterpreted Supreme Court precedent.

Keep reading

SCOTUS rejects Trump’s petition for rehearing $5M E. Jean Carroll judgment

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has formally rejected President Donald Trump’s petition for a rehearing regarding the $5 million civil judgment in the E. Jean Carroll lawsuit. The high court rejected the petition without providing an explanation in accordance with standard court customs.

Monday’s denial leaves intact a 2023 Manhattan jury verdict that found Trump liable for the alleged mid-1990s sexual abuse and defamation of Carroll, a former magazine columnist. SCOTUS had previously declined to review the civil case in late June before Trump’s legal team filed for the rehearing.

“The American People stand with President Trump as they demand an immediate end to all of the Witch Hunts, including the Democrat-funded travesty of the Carroll Hoaxes,” said a spokesperson for Trump’s legal team in a statement to The Hill.

“President Trump will keep winning against Liberal lawfare, as he continues to focus on his mission to Make America Great Again.”

Carroll’s attorney Roberta Kaplan praised the decision, seeing it as a closure of Trump’s last avenue to have the verdict reversed.

“We are pleased that the United States Supreme Court has declined again to hear this case,” Kaplan said in a statement.

“As a result, the jury’s unanimous verdict that Donald Trump sexually assaulted and then defamed E. Jean Carroll is now final and cannot be challenged in any court,” the attorney continued.

Trump has consistently denied that he sexually abused Carroll, calling all of her allegations a “Made Up Story” that never happened.

Meanwhile, a separate $83.3 million defamation verdict against Trump remains under appeal before the Supreme Court, centering on statements made while he was in the White House.

Keep reading

Clarence Thomas Reveals Certain Law Schools Won’t Host Him

Conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said certain law schools won’t host him because of his political beliefs.

Justice Thomas said Stanford Law School and others are “off limits” to him because of his conservative political values.

Clarence Thomas made the remarks this week during a conversation with host Peter Robinson at the Hoover Institute.

Stanford denied Thomas’ claim that the law school wouldn’t host him.

“We would be honored to host Justice Thomas at Stanford Law School,” a spokesperson said in a statement to Fox News. “The Stanford Constitutional Law Center, directed by Professor Michael McConnell, former Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, regularly hosts members of the judiciary on campus.”

“Our students and faculty would welcome the opportunity to hear from Justice Thomas and engage with his perspectives on the Court, the Constitution, and the law,” the spokesperson said.

Fox News reported:

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas recently claimed that certain law schools and colleges were completely “off limits” for him and other conservatives to visit.

“You know, I have never been to Stanford Law School,” Thomas told Peter Robinson during an on-stage discussion hosted by the Hoover Institute.

He went on to say that current conservative thought leaders, like himself, are largely unwelcome from high education institutions like Stanford Law School.

“That’s the reality,” Thomas said. “That’s the world we’re in, because there’s certain places that are just presumptively off limits. This is the way it works. And that’s true. I mean, I’ve been to Yale Law School, but that’s the way it works. And to say it isn’t, is to lie.”

The comments from the high court justice came amid ongoing criticism from conservative pundits that college campuses have become intolerant to right-wing ideas and that students are being indoctrinated by liberal professors.

Thomas alleged that, if not for YouTube, the ideas and works of American economist Thomas Sowell, who profoundly shaped his political views, would be lost to the younger generation of students because some people’s views are “unpalatable” to the student body.

Keep reading

Rage Politics: Hakeem Jeffries Will Take A Baseball Bat To The Supreme Court

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has struggled to pander to the mob to secure power in the midterm elections, including brandishing a baseball bat on social media to show his radical bona fides.

With Democratic Socialists chanting “you’re next” when seeing Jeffries, he continues to struggle to stay in front of the mob.

This week, he doubled down on his pledge to throw the Supreme Court to the mob if they make him the next Speaker of the House of Representatives.

After the recent gains by far-left candidates in states like Minnesota and the near victory of Democratic Socialist Francesca Hong in Wisconsin, Jeffries came out to reaffirm his intent to radically change the highest court. According to the Washington Times, Jeffries declared, “There’s a variety of different options that are on the table, and I think that we can’t foreclose any single one of them.” He added that the “conservative, right-wing majority on the Supreme Court has become basically a subsidiary of the MAGA Republican Party.”

He promised to make far-left Rep. Jamie Raskin (D., Md.) the driving force behind changing the Court, including possible 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices and expanding the Court to create an instant liberal majority.

Notably, none of these figures were claiming that the Court was fundamentally flawed until it ruled against them, particularly in cases that impacted their political power such as declaring racial gerrymandering to be unconstitutional.

What is interesting is that the liberal justices reject this narrative, reminding citizens that the Court has delivered major losses to the Trump Administration. Indeed, President Trump has routinely attacked conservative justices for ruling against him and his Administration.

In addition, polls show that the majority of the public supports virtually all of the recent major rulings, including the ban on racial gerrymandering.

It is only the Democrats who oppose those rulings and are now demanding a hostile takeover of the Court.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) has called for packing the Court because it does not follow her views and those of “widely held public opinion.” I have pushed back on that rationale, given the Court’s function as a countermajoritarian institution. However, these polls even challenge the flawed rationale for court packing.

So Jeffries is promising that the work of James Madison will be undone by the likes of Jamie Raskin and Elizabeth Warren. To have these calls on our 250th anniversary is crushingly ironic.  Other leading Democrats have lined up to pledge to fundamentally change the Court, which has played a key role in making this the oldest and most stable republic in history.

It is simply about power. Former Obama Attorney General Eric Holder has put packing the Supreme Court front and center, explaining, “[We’re] talking about the acquisition and the use of power if there is a Democratic trifecta in 2028.”

I have called it the Nike School of Constitutional Law. Democratic leaders are pledging to “just do it” to appease the mob. Of course, some of these measures would be challenged if done without constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court would then have to rule on the effort to pack or limit its members. The expansion can be done by legislative vote. Although most Americans oppose court packing, Democrats view control of the Court as essential to pushing through a radical agenda to change the political system to their advantage.

Years ago, Harvard professor Michael Klarman laid out a radical agenda to change the system to guarantee Republicans “will never win another election.” However, he warned that “the Supreme Court could strike down everything I just described.” Therefore, the court must be packed in advance to allow these changes to occur.

In Federalist 10, Madison discussed the destructive impact of factions in forcing through opportunistic changes to advance their interests:

“By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”

We are witnessing the same factional politics being pushed by leaders who believe that they can ride a rage wave into power. They have a greater likelihood of causing lasting damage to our system than guaranteeing their own lasting power. History is not on their side. Today’s revolutionaries are often tomorrow’s reactionaries in an age of rage.

Keep reading

Harris Renews Calls To Pack The Court Despite Poll Showing Most Americans Agree With Its Decisions

Kamala Harris is again promising the radical wing of her party that she will pack the Supreme Court. Pete Buttigieg and others have done the same to pander to the extreme left. These calls are increasing among Democratic leaders despite a recent poll showing that the Court remains the more popular institution vis-à-vis Congress, and that the majority of Americans agree with its major decisions.

The Marquette Law School poll shows that the Court remains slightly underwater in popularity (47% favor, 53% disfavor), but it is still much more popular than Congress or the two political parties. Moreover, that popularity is increasing, not decreasing, as a result of recent decisions. It was at 44% in 2025.

The mantra to pack the Court is premised on the false claim that the Court is ideologically robotic and partisan. That claim has always been disconnected from the actual voting record of the Court. Forty-four percent of cases are decided unanimously by the Supreme Court. When nearly unanimous cases (8-1 and 7-2) are included, that figure jumps to over 60 percent.

The liberal justices themselves have pushed back on the Democratic narrative. Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor have all contradicted these claims. Justice Kagan recently spoke publicly on these claims, “rejecting claims that the high court’s conservative majority is in President Donald Trump’s corner.”

The most recent poll shows that Americans agree with most of the major decisions in the last year.

Keep reading

Judge Halts $800-a-Day Fines Against Investigative Journalist Catherine Herridge for Refusing to Betray Confidential Sources in China-Tied Case

Investigative reporter Catherine Herridge secured a major, though temporary, victory for press freedom after a federal judge clarified that she will not have to keep paying an $800-per-day contempt fine while her legal team asks the U.S. Supreme Court to hear her First Amendment case.

The court also denied plaintiff Yanping Chen’s request to increase the daily fine to a staggering $5,000 and ordered that the money Herridge has already paid be returned, Herridge announced Friday in a statement on X.

The district court has clarified that I don’t have to pay the $800 daily contempt fine for refusing to disclose my confidential sources while our team asks the Supreme Court to hear our First Amendment case.

The court also denied the plaintiff, Yanping Chen’s request to raise the daily contempt fines to 5K. The court ordered reimbursement for the fines I have already paid.

This case is much bigger than one journalist, one story, or one news outlet. The outcome will impact every newsroom in this country and the ability of reporters to protect their sources and do investigative reporting that seeks accountability.

Yet, critical evidence remains hidden from the public and under seal by the District Court.

At a time when many corporate media outlets choose to settle or pressure journalists to surrender their notes, I want to acknowledge that Fox News has continued to stand behind me and fully support the First Amendment and investigative journalism by paying my attorney’s fees.

I remain committed to safeguarding the principles of investigative journalism and a free press.

Keep reading

Pete Buttigieg Wants to Abolish the Electoral College and Pack SCOTUS but Can’t See Why Anyone Thinks This is Radical

Just yesterday, we brought you part of a recent interview that Pete Buttigieg did where he was basically fantasizing about new ways to tax Americans.

Now there is more from the same interview where Buttigieg talks about abolishing the Electoral College and packing the Supreme Court and then goes on to say that he can’t believe anyone sees this as radical.

It looks like Mayor Pete is planning another run for president. The messages he is sharing in these interview clips are for the far left voters of the Democrat base. That is who he is talking to here.

He wants to let them know that he is one of them.

Transcript via Real Clear Politics:

Former Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg told the “Diary of a CEO” podcast some of the changes he would make to America’s constitutional political system, listing four fundamental reforms that he says people should not consider “radical.”

“People forget, the best part about the Constitution is its ability to be amended!” he said, listing:

– Eliminating the Electoral College and deciding the presidency through a nationwide popular vote –

“I still can’t believe that anybody considers this radical,” he said. “I think people haven’t thought through how much benefit would come from that. If we did that, there are so many votes in red and blue states that you couldn’t ignore anymore. If you were running for president as a Democrat, you’d have to go to Texas. Even if Texas were still going to vote mostly for Republicans, you’d have to turn out every Democratic vote you could in Texas. I just think we’d be so much better off if a Republican and Democratic candidate were competing over Texas.”

– Reforming the number of justices and operating structure of the Supreme Court –

“I would have term limits, more justices, and some process that makes it less partisan who the justices are. There are some different ways to do that. The one I think is most interesting is called the balanced-bench proposal.”

Keep reading

Rep. Ogles Files Articles of Impeachment Against Radical Leftist Judge Who REFUSED Ruling of Supreme Court and Blocked Trump from Ending TPS for Somalis

Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN) introduced articles of impeachment against radical leftist Judge Allison Burroughs who refused a Supreme Court ruling on decided to block the Trump Administration from ending the temporary protected status (TPS) for Somalis in the US.

A federal judge on Friday once again blocked the Trump Administration from terminating Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Somalis.

The termination was supposed to take effect on March 17, however, a federal judge previously halted the termination.

On Friday, US District Judge Allison Burroughs, an Obama appointee, issued a new administrative stay after the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and an emergency motion.

There are more than 100,000 Somalis living in the US. An estimated 5,000 Somalis are eligible for Temporary Protected Status.

Judge Burroughs’ order came after the US Supreme Court ruled that the Trump Administration is allowed to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for hundreds of thousands of Haitians and Syrians.

The high court, in a 6-3 vote, ruled that the Temporary Protected Status is… temporary.

Keep reading