Tag: scotus

Supreme Court Greenlights States to Cut Off Medicaid Funding for Planned Parenthood in Major Win for Pro-Life Advocates

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday paved the way for states to block Medicaid funding from going to abortion giant Planned Parenthood.

The high court’s decision, which comes after years of legal wrangling, affirms the authority of individual states to determine how taxpayer dollars are allocated — and who gets excluded.

In a landmark 6-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic that individual Medicaid recipients do not have the right to sue states under federal law for excluding abortion providers like Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid programs.

The Court’s decision, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, reversed a ruling from the Fourth Circuit and solidified the state of South Carolina’s authority to remove Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid network—without fear of federal lawsuits from individual patients or abortion activists cloaking themselves in civil rights statutes.

This case arose after South Carolina decided in 2018 to terminate Planned Parenthood’s participation in its Medicaid program, citing a state law that bans the use of public funds for abortion.

Abortion advocates predictably sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983, claiming the state violated a supposed “right” under the Medicaid Act’s “any-qualified-provider” provision.

Justice Gorsuch clarified that this provision does not confer individually enforceable federal rights. It is a directive to states, not a free pass for left-wing groups to weaponize the courts every time a state takes a stand for life.

“The decision whether to let private plaintiffs enforce a new statutory right poses delicate questions of public policy. New rights for some mean new duties for others. And private enforcement actions, meritorious or not, can force governments to direct money away from public services and spend it instead on litigation,” Gorsuch wrote.

He continued, “The job of resolving how best to weigh those competing costs and benefits belongs to the people’s elected representatives, not unelected judges charged with applying the law as they find it.” 

Keep reading

Letting Marijuana Users Have Guns Poses ‘A Clear Danger,’ Trump’s Solicitor General Tells Supreme Court

In a recent filing with the U.S. Supreme Court, the Trump-led Department of Justice (DOJ) is doubling down on arguments made under former President Joe Biden that users of illegal drugs—including marijuana—”pose a clear danger of misusing firearms.”

That risk, DOJ contends, justifies the longstanding federal prohibition on gun ownership by drug consumers—known as Section 922(g)(3)—despite the Constitution’s broad Second Amendment protections.

In a petition for review by the high court, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argues that despite recent appeals court decisions calling the constitutionality of the firearms ban into question, the restriction is nevertheless lawful.

“Section 922(g)(3) complies with the Second Amendment,” the government’s June 2 filing in the case, U.S. v. Hemani, says. “That provision targets a category of persons who pose a clear danger of misusing firearms: habitual users of unlawful drugs.”

Some lower courts have said the government’s blanket ban on gun and ammunition possession infringes on the Second Amendment—at least as applied to certain individual cases—because there’s no historical justification for such a broad restriction on an entire category of people.

But in the appeal petition in Hemani, Trump’s solicitor general said the ban is necessary and narrowly tailored enough to survive the legal challenge.

The federal statute “bars their possession of firearms only temporarily and leaves it within their power to lift the restriction at any time; anyone who stops habitually using illegal drugs can resume possessing firearms.”

Notably, while the government mentions “habitual” users of illegal drugs 40 times in its filing, that word does not itself appear in 922(g)(3). The language of the statute prohibits anyone “who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” from purchasing or possessing firearms or ammunition.

A reply brief from Hemani’s lawyers is due to the Supreme Court by July 21.

While DOJ is asking the high court to take up the Hemani case, at least two other, similar cases are waiting in the wings: U.S. v. Cooper and U.S. v. Baxter both of which also hinge on the constitutionality of 922(g)(3).

In Cooper, an Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel dismissed a three-year prison sentence against a person convicted for possession of a firearm while being an active user of marijuana. Judges in that case ruled that government’s prohibition on gun ownership by drug users is justified only in certain circumstances—not always.

“Nothing in our tradition allows disarmament simply because [the defendant] belongs to a category of people, drug users, that Congress has categorically deemed dangerous,” their ruling said.

In Baxter, the Eighth Circuit ruled 922(g)(3) unconstitutional as applied to the facts in the case.

Judges in that case wrote that there were insufficient factual findings in the record “for this Court to review Baxter’s as-applied Second Amendment challenge.” Nevertheless, the they wrote, “We reverse the district court’s ruling on Baxter’s as-applied Second Amendment challenge and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Keep reading

$2 Million Advance? SCOTUS Justices Disclose Financial Gains

Eight of the nine justices on the highest court in the land have filed their annual financial disclosures. These reports, released to the public on Tuesday, detail the incomes, gifts, liabilities, and outside positions of each justice serving on the United States Supreme Court. 

The reports were due May 15 for eight of the justices. According to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Justice Samuel Alito requested a 90-day extension, as he has done previously.

Three of the justices reported considerable outside income from books in the last year. Ketanji Jackson recorded receiving a book advance payment from Penguin Random House for over $2 million. She also received reimbursements for thirteen “book events”. 

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch also brought in additional money from book deals, according to the reports. Sonia Sotomayor reported over $70,000 in book royalties from Penguin Random House LLC and an additional $60,000 in an advance payment. Sotomayor said that she visited the Coterie Theatre in Kansas City, Missouri, to “review a workshop performance” of “Just Ask,” her children’s book that was adapted as a musical. The trip was valued at $1,437, according to her own report.

Gorsuch claimed over $250,000 in book royalty income from Princeton University Press and HarperCollins Publishers LLC. He also listed reimbursements for three separate “Participations in book-related events” and $30,000 from teaching at George Mason University. 

Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett both reported income from teaching at the University of Notre Dame Law School, claiming over $30,000 each in their individual reports. Kavanaugh continues to coach girls’ basketball, according to his disclosure. 

Keep reading

Supreme Court: US Gun Makers Not Liable For Cartel Violence

In a unanimous blow to gun control advocacy groups, the Supreme Court shut down Mexico’s $10 billion claim targeting U.S. gun makers in a cross-border lawsuit.

Mexico originally filed the suit in 2021, arguing that U.S. gun companies were responsible for the weapons that fueled cartel violence. Mexico received support in its lawsuit from American gun control advocacy groups such as Everytown and March for our Lives Action Fund.

The Supreme Court ruling, written by Justice Elena Kagan, found that the manufacturer’s alleged failure to exercise “reasonable care” does not meet the standard necessary to be found liable for “aiding and abetting” the sale of illegal firearms in Mexico.

Mexico had asked the court for $10 billion in damages and additional court-imposed injunctive relief in the form of restrictions on manufacturers. According to a lawyer who spoke to RCP, siding with Mexico on the injunctive relief “would have likely severely prohibited the distribution of the manufacturer’s products” within the United States.

A federal district court judge initially ruled that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act protected the gun manufacturers from the suit. In 2024, the First Circuit Court of Appeals revitalized the lawsuit. In response, gun manufacturer Smith & Wesson brought the case to the Supreme Court.

The PLCAA, signed into law in 2005 by President George W. Bush, shields gun manufacturers and dealers from liability when crimes are committed with their products. The law includes exceptions which Mexico’s lawyers sought to invoke.

The original suit by Mexico, which named multiple U.S.-based gun manufacturers as defendants, claimed that Mexicans “have been victimized by a deadly flood of military-style and other particularly lethal guns that flows from the U.S. across the border.” It also argued that U.S. companies were negligent in their sales practices, claiming that the gun companies “are not accidental or unintentional players in this tragedy; they are deliberate and willing participants, reaping profits from the criminal market they knowingly supply.”

In response, lawyers for Smith & Wesson argued in a filing that the lawsuit “faults the defendants for producing common firearms” and for “failing to restrict the purchase of firearms by regular citizens.” They made the case that “aiding and abetting criminal activity must involve something more than making products generally.” Ultimately, the Supreme Court agreed with this reasoning.

In reference to the injunctive relief that Mexico asked the court to grant, lawyers for Smith & Wesson asserted that the lawsuit was “inflicting costly and intrusive discovery at the hands of a foreign sovereign that is trying to bully the industry into adopting a host of gun-control measures that have been repeatedly rejected by American voters.”

According to some estimates, more than 250,000 firearms are smuggled from the United States into Mexico each year. In contrast, Mexico has one gun store and issues fewer than 50 new gun permits each year. The U.S. is the largest firearm exporter in the world, partly due to relaxed gun laws within the country.

Keep reading

Justice Elena Kagan: AR-15s and AK-47s Are ‘Widely Legal and Bought by Many Ordinary Consumers’

Justice Elena Kagan wrote the opinion in the Supreme Court’s decision striking down Mexico’s lawsuit and described AR-15s and AK-47s as “both widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers.”

Breitbart News reported that SCOTUS pointed to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) in striking down Mexico’s lawsuit in a unanimous June 5, 2025, decision.

In the  opinion, Kagan noted how Mexico tried to point to the way certain guns were marketed and designed in hopes of getting traction with their lawsuit. She explained why the court rejected this approach and while so doing, highlighted how popular and “widely” owned AR-15s, AK-47s, and other similar rifles have become.

Keep reading

US Gun Makers Notch Win Against Mexico In Unanimous SCOTUS Ruling Authored By Liberal Justice

The Supreme Court unanimously rejected on Thursday the Mexican government’s lawsuit against American gun manufacturers.

The court held that Mexico’s 2021 lawsuit against seven U.S. gun manufacturers is barred under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

“As required by a federal statute, Mexico seeks to show (among other things) that the defendant companies participated in the unlawful sale or marketing of firearms,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the court’s opinion. “More specifically, Mexico alleges that the companies aided and abetted unlawful sales routing guns to Mexican drug cartels. The question presented is whether Mexico’s complaint plausibly pleads that conduct. We conclude it does not.”

Keep reading

Supreme Court Sides With Catholic Charities in Case About Tax Exemptions for Religious Organizations

The Supreme Court unanimously sided with Catholic Charities Bureau on Thursday, ruling that Wisconsin discriminated against the organization by denying tax exempt status and violated the First Amendment’s protection for religion. 

Wisconsin has a law, similar to most states and the federal government, that exempts certain religious organizations from paying unemployment compensation taxes. The statute exempts nonprofit organizations “operated primarily for religious purposes” and “operated, supervised, controlled, or principally supported by a church or convention or association of churches.” Catholic Charities Bureau and four of its sub-entities tried to obtain the exemption in 2016 as an organization controlled by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Superior, Wisconsin.

After years of litigation, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ultimately denied the exemption, ruling that Catholic Charities Bureau was not “operated primarily for religious purposes” because they do not engage in proselytization or limit their charitable services to Catholics. However, Catholic Charities Bureau argued that Catholic teachings do not permit “misus[ing] works of charity for purposes of proselytism.”

“There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the court. 

“When the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it imposes a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny,” she continued. “Because Wisconsin has transgressed that principle without the tailoring necessary to survive such scrutiny, the judgment of the Wisconsin Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.”

Keep reading

Supreme Court Issues Unanimous Ruling In Key Case

The Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision on Thursday involving an Ohio woman who alleges reverse discrimination. The decision could become a key victory in ongoing ideological wars against diversity, equality, and inclusion initiatives.

In a 9-0 decision that, believe it or not, was penned by left-leaning Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the highest court in the land ruled that Marlean Ames was not required to meet a “higher burden of proof to prove that she was discriminated against despite being part of a ‘majority’ group,” the New York Post said.

Ames filed a lawsuit against the Ohio Department of Youth Services in November 2020. In the suit, she made allegations that she was wrongfully passed over for a promotion in favor of a lesbian. This individual, she claims, was not qualified for the position, and Ames was later demoted and then replaced by a gay man. This individual was also not qualified for the job, she said.

Ames’s complaint will now be sent back to the lower courts for review.

“The ruling from the Supreme Court makes it easier to pursue claims of reverse discrimination in 20 states and the District of Columbia that are covered by federal courts of appeals that still applied the standard,” CBS News reported.

In the decision, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that SCOTUS’ case law “makes clear that the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group. … The ‘background circumstances’ rule flouts that basic principle.”

She also pointed out that the requirement places all majority-group plaintiffs under “the same, highly specific evidentiary standard in every case.”

A federal district court had previously ruled in favor of the Ohio Department of Youth Services after it found that it offered “legitimate, nondiscriminatory business reasons” for not giving Ames the promotion.

Keep reading

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.”

“We take threats against public officials very seriously,” Martin wrote Schumer in a letter on January 21st. “I look forward to your cooperation.”

Schumer never apologized for these remarks, despite a very public rebuke by Chief Justice John Roberts.

“Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous,” Roberts said in a rare public statement.

“I should not have used the words I used yesterday,” Schumer said at the time. They didn’t come out the way I intended to.”

“I’m from Brooklyn. We speak in strong language. I shouldn’t have used the words I did, but in no way was I making a threat.”

Last month, Schumer complained that Kamala Harris lost the presidential election because Americans did not understand all the wonderful things Democrats and the Biden administration had done for them.

Keep reading

SCOTUS redux? California courts reject Christian baker punished for lesbian wedding cake refusal

It’s deja vu all over again for makers of custom wedding cakes who seek to operate their bakeries based on their religious beliefs, and possibly for the U.S. Supreme Court as well.

The California Supreme Court has declined to hear a petition for review by Christian baker Cathy Miller, who says her Tastries Bakery is limited to custom wedding cakes and refused to make one for a lesbian wedding in 2017, leading her lawyers to promise to petition SCOTUS. It didn’t give a reason for the denial.

A week-long trial determined Miller engages in “pure speech” and “expressive conduct” protected by the First Amendment, reflecting a SCOTUS precedent for Colorado web designer Lorie Smith, who resisted designing same-sex marriage websites and received a $1.5 million settlement from the state after the SCOTUS ruling.

But a California appeals court overruled the factual findings, deeming the white, three-tiered cake sought by Eileen and Mireya Rodriguez-Del Rio “predesigned” because it appeared as a “display cake” in the shop and allegedly held “no recognizable symbolic meaning.”

That violates a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals precedent upholding the First Amendment rights of tattoo artists, who use similar “sample books” as starting points for original designs, Miller’s petition says.

The couple itself “emphasized the expressive import of the cake,” with Mireya testifying “she wanted a cake inspired by two of Tastries’ display cakes,” and later commissioned “a tiered symbolic Styrofoam cake with a small, edible top layer” from a former Tastries employee who then served it at their wedding. 

That former employee testified that she considers herself a “cake artist” and that the California Civil Rights Department, which sued Miller for declining the lesbian wedding order, “advised her not” to promote the cake she made for the Rodriguez-Del Rios on Instagram, the petition says, implying the department knew that would undermine its case.

The petition asked the California Supreme Court to consider whether the First Amendment’s free speech clause protected her right to refuse creating a lesbian wedding cake, and whether the appeals court’s ruling that the state’s Unruh Act is “neutral” and “generally applicable” conflict with three SCOTUS and one 9th Circuit precedents since 2018.

“As a former teacher, Cathy’s process for designing wedding cakes is unique: she meets with each couple for over an hour, and spends time teaching them the religious and symbolic meaning behind the wedding cake they’re commissioning to celebrate their union,” her lawyers at religious liberty law firm Becket said.

Miller set up “written design standards” early in her business in response to customers asking for designs that “contradict her faith,” such as “gory or pornographic images,” celebrations of drug use or depictions that “demean others” in addition to violations of “the Christian sacrament of marriage,” the firm said.

Those resemble the standards observed by Colorado custom cake baker Jack Phillips, who has spent a decade in state and federal court for his Masterpiece Cakeshop’s right to resist making cakes that celebrate same-sex marriage or gender transitions. 

Keep reading