Tag: scotus

Forcing baker to make same-sex wedding cake recreates printing press censorship: scholars to SCOTUS

hirty-five years ago, Justice Antonin Scalia led a Supreme Court majority to gut the free exercise of religion under the rubric of “neutral” and “generally applicable” law, a decision that most members of the current court “have called into doubt” even as lower courts employ the 1990 Smith precedent “to permit government oppression.”

So say a former federal appellate judge, the allegedly fifth-most cited legal scholar of all time and a dozen other First Amendment and antidiscrimination law scholars, who together urge SCOTUS to “emphatically cast aside” Smith in accepting a case whose central question it has repeatedly decided.

They are joined by 16 states and several religious denominations and advocacy groups in supporting Tastries baker Cathy Miller’s SCOTUS petition to hear her eight-year legal saga, after the California Supreme Court refused to review an appeals court ruling that overturned a trial ruling in Miller’s favor for refusing to design a cake for a same-sex wedding.

The Golden State “has repeatedly compared Cathy’s religious beliefs about marriage to racism,” her lawyers at religious liberty law firm Becket said. California made the same comparison when female inmates sued to block its law incarcerating males with them.

The California appeals court distinguished its ruling from SCOTUS precedents in favor of Jack Phillips’ Masterpiece Cakeshop and Lorie Smith’s 303 Creative, against Colorado’s compelled creation of cakes and websites for same-sex weddings respectively, by claiming the cake Miller refused to make “conveyed no particularized message about the nature of marriage.”

Miller’s petition asks SCOTUS to resolve whether “compelled participation in a ceremony” is banned only when third parties view that participation as “endorsement,” if Miller must show “unfettered discretion or categorical exemptions for identical secular conduct” to prove a law is not generally applicable, and if 1990’s Smith should remain at all.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Stays Ruling That Could Lead to Retrial of Death Row Prisoner

The Supreme Court on Sept. 26 temporarily stayed a federal appeals court ruling requiring that Alabama death row inmate Michael Sockwell be retried for murder.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit had ruled on June 30 that Sockwell’s conviction was unconstitutional because prosecutors engaged in racial discrimination during jury selection.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who oversees emergency appeals from Alabama, issued an administrative stay of the 11th Circuit ruling. An administrative stay gives the justices more time to consider an emergency appeal.

A divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit had ruled that Alabama prosecutors violated Sockwell’s constitutional rights by excluding blacks from the jury at his trial.

The ruling made Sockwell eligible for retrial. He was convicted in the 1988 killing of Montgomery County Deputy Sheriff Isaiah Harris. Although Sockwell was sentenced to death, his lawyers said their client’s IQ is low enough to make him ineligible for the death penalty.

The panel majority specifically found that prosecutors violated Sockwell’s 14th Amendment rights when they “repeatedly and purposefully” turned away potential black jurors who were deemed more sympathetic to him because of their shared race.

Keep reading

Trump asks Supreme Court to determine whether he can end birthright citizenship

resident Donald Trump on Friday asked the Supreme Court to take up his executive order on ending birthright citizenship, after a lower court deemed the order unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court previously narrowed the scope of injunctions against the executive order, finding that lower courts likely lacked the authority to issue sweeping injunctions, but did not rule on the constitutionality of the order.  

“The lower court’s decisions invalidated a policy of prime importance to the president and his administration in a manner that undermines our border security,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the Supreme Court in an appeal obtained by CNN. “Those decisions confer, without lawful justification, the privilege of American citizenship on hundreds of thousands of unqualified people.”

The Supreme Court has not weighed in on whether it will take up the overarching issue of ending the practice so far.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Rules That Trump Can Withhold $4 Billion in Foreign Aid

The US Supreme Court on Friday ruled 6-3 that President Trump can withhold $4 billion in foreign aid approved by Congress.

The three liberal justices, Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson, dissented.

Earlier this month, US District Judge Amir Ali, a Biden appointee, blocked President Trump from cutting billions of dollars in USAID and foreign aid that Congress authorized.

Judge Ali ordered Trump to spend the money by the end of the month. Trump immediately appealed.

According to CNBC, the Supreme Court said, “the asserted harms to the Executive’s conduct of foreign affairs appear to outweigh the potential harm.”

CNN reported:

The Supreme Court on Friday allowed President Donald Trump to freeze $4 billion in foreign aid payments, handing the White House a significant victory in its months-long quest to claw back spending that was approved by Congress last year.

At issue is $4 billion in foreign aid, including for global health and HIV programs, that was allocated by Congress, but that Trump deemed wasteful and has been fighting on two fronts. In addition to defending the aid cuts in federal court, his administration is also seeking to “rescind” the money through Congress.

Keep reading

Feds Move To Dismiss Marijuana And Gun Rights Case In Anticipation Of Landmark Ruling From Supreme Court

The Trump administration is asking a federal court to dismiss one of multiple pending cases concerning marijuana and gun rights, in large part because it expects the U.S. Supreme Court to make a precedent-setting ruling on the issue.

In a filing with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on Tuesday, attorneys for the Justice Department urged a judge to dismiss a case “without prejudice” that involves a man charged in 2022 after police discovered cannabis and a handgun in his vehicle during a traffic stop.

Attorneys for the man, Jared Michael Harrison, also want the court to dismiss the case—but they take issue with DOJ’s specific request, as dismissing the case without prejudice would mean he could be prosecuted again. And they criticized the government’s arguments in support of its motion, noting that the department relied heavily on the length of the court battle that’s lasted three years. The lawyers also challenged the idea that outstanding Supreme Court cases that similarly deal with cannabis and federal firearms laws justify dismissal without prejudice.

But according to the federal government, the request would be “in the interest of justice,” while recognizing that the constitutionality of the statute in question–18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)—”remains open both in this case and in the country as a whole. ”

“There are currently seven petitions for certiorari pending before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of § 922(g)(3) under the Second Amendment, six of which involve as-applied challenges, and are a mix of petitions filed by the United States and criminal defendants,” DOJ said, adding that they expect there’s a “reasonable likelihood that the Supreme Court will grant certiorari” in at least one of the pending cases.

“Continuing to pursue this case at this time would needlessly waste judicial and prosecutorial resources,” the government’s filing said.

Keep reading

SCOTUS Tees Up Potential Takedown Of Progressives’ ‘Independent Agencies’ Theory

he U.S. Supreme Court is signaling that it may be finally ready to put the kibosh on longstanding precedent used by left-wing progressives to cripple America’s separation of powers.

On Monday, the high court granted a request from the Trump administration to temporarily pause a lower court injunction by a Biden-appointed district judge. That edict attempted to block President Trump from firing Rebecca Slaughter, a Democrat member of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

What was particularly notable about the Supreme Court’s order is the revelation that the justices will be considering the merits of the case, with oral arguments tentatively scheduled for December. The high court specifically instructed both parties to file briefs addressing two key questions: 1) “Whether the statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission violate the separation of powers and, if so, whether [Humphrey’s Executor v. United States] … should be overruled,” and 2) “Whether a federal court may prevent a person’s removal from public office, either through relief at equity or at law.”

While likely not as well-known as other past SCOTUS decisions, Humphrey’s Executor has had major negative implications for America’s separation of powers and the ability of presidents to fully exercise their Article II authority.

The case first came to fruition in the early 1930s after Republican President Herbert Hoover appointed William Humphrey to serve as a member of the FTC for a full seven-year term. Upon taking office, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Democrat, sought Humphrey’s resignation due to the fact that the latter was a conservative.

When Humphrey declined to do so, Roosevelt fired him. According to Oyez, the FTC Act, which was passed by Congress, “only allowed a president to remove a commissioner for ‘inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.’”

While Humphrey passed away shortly after his firing, his executor filed suit to challenge Humphrey’s dismissal and recover his salary. The case ultimately made its way to the Supreme Court, which aimed to address the question of whether provisions of the FTC Act unconstitutionally encroached upon the president’s Article II powers.

In its 1935 decision, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Roosevelt, arguing that Humphrey’s termination lacked justification and that the FTC Act was constitutional. As summarized by Oyez, the high court “reasoned that the Constitution had never given ‘illimitable power of removal’ to the president,” and established the precedent that so-called “independent agencies” like the FTC were different than other federal departments because Congress created them “to perform quasi-legislative and judicial functions.”

As The Heritage Foundation’s Hans van Spakovsky recently observed, the decision “was pure poppycock” given that “the FTC, with its authority to promulgate regulations that have the authority of law and its power to pursue individuals it believes have engaged in unfair or deceptive practices, is engaging in the very essence of an executive function.” Furthermore, “[i]t is the president,” he added, “who is designated in Section 3 of Article II with the responsibility to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.’”

Keep reading

Kavanaugh Would-Be Assassin Now Identifies As a Transgender Woman

The United States Department of Justice has formally recommended a prison sentence for the man who tried to assassinate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. But according to Court documents, Nicholas John Roske is now “Sophia Roske.”

Roske pleaded guilty to the crime in April of 2025, and a sentencing memo was filed on Friday in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland, according to a press release from the DOJ. The U.S. government is seeking a sentence of 30 years. 

Roske claimed to suffer from severe mental illness at the time of his 2022 arrest. Now, that same instability appears to have driven him to identify as female, an episode that underscores both the growing trend of transgender-linked violence and the broader, unaddressed mental health crisis in America.

Keep reading

Supreme Court rejects South Carolina’s bid to enforce transgender bathroom ban

The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to take up an application from South Carolina seeking to enforce its ban on students using public school bathrooms that match their gender identity.

The brief, unsigned order represents a small setback for the state in its bid to tighten policies related to transgender people. However, a lawsuit on the matter will still proceed in the lower courts. Three Republican-appointed justices, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, would have granted South Carolina’s request.

The order from the high court comes after a federal appeals court had temporarily enjoined the state from enforcing its law while the case plays out. The state wanted the Supreme Court to lift that injunction temporarily.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit had granted the injunction at the request of a ninth-grader who wanted to use the boys’ bathroom, which didn’t correspond to the student’s sex.

Attorneys for the student, identified as John Doe in the lawsuit, argued to the high court that an emergency pause on the Fourth Circuit’s order was not warranted given the lawsuit centered on only one student. No other students have taken issue with John Doe using the boys’ restroom, the attorneys noted.

“Indeed, no student has ever complained about sharing boys’ restrooms with John, who has dressed and presented as a boy since he was a young child,” the attorneys wrote.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Grants Trump Admin Request to Withhold Foreign Aid Funds

The Supreme Court on Sept. 9 granted a Trump administration request to temporarily withhold approximately $4 billion in foreign aid funding previously authorized by Congress.

The federal government’s emergency application in U.S. Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and Global Health Council v. Trump was granted by Chief Justice John Roberts one day after it was filed with the nation’s highest court.

The court issued an administrative stay, which puts a lower court order requiring the release of the funding on hold to give the justices more time to fully consider the matter. The court did not provide reasons for its decision.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) had asked the justices to pause a ruling by Washington-based U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, who ordered the federal government to spend about $4 billion in previously appropriated funds.

The money is earmarked for foreign aid and United Nations peacekeeping projects.

The Supreme Court’s new order states that Ali’s orders of Sept. 3 in the two cases are “hereby partially stayed for funds that are subject to the President’s August 28, 2025 [rescission] proposal currently pending before Congress pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court.”

Keep reading

Supreme Court Throws Out 90-Year-Old Precedent, Allows Trump To Fire FTC Commissioner

Chief Justice John Roberts issued an administrative stay Monday that has effectively put a 90-year-old Supreme Court precedent on the brink of being overturned. The ruling, made without explanation on the court’s emergency docket, allows President Donald Trump to proceed with his firing of Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, despite a lower court and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals having blocked the action just last week.

The decision has significant ramifications for the independence of federal agencies and could pave the way for President Trump to fire Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook.

A Battle Over Executive Power

The legal battle centers on the 1935 Supreme Court case, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which held that a president can’t fire officials at independent agencies for mere policy disagreements. The precedent established that “cause” for removal must be based on “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”

Last week, both U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan and a majority of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals had sided with Slaughter, finding that the circumstances of her firing by the Trump administration “almost identically mirror” the facts of the Humphrey’s Executor case. The D.C. Circuit majority, comprised of Judges Patricia Millett and Cornelia Pillard, stated that doing anything but reinstating Slaughter “would be to defy the Supreme Court’s decisions that bind our judgments.”

Keep reading