Tag: scotus

Supreme Court Upholds Marijuana Users’ Gun Rights, Rejecting Trump DOJ Arguments In Major Second Amendment Case

The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously sided with a man who was prosecuted for possessing a gun while being a regular consumer of marijuana, ruling that the government’s actions violate the Second Amendment.

The opinion authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch is narrow in scope and does not entirely strike down the federal law known as 922(g)(3) that prohibits people who illegally consume controlled substances from possessing or purchasing firearms.

But it does say that as applied to the man in the current case, Ali Danial Hemani, it is unconstitutional to automatically bar people from lawful gun ownership just because they happen to use marijuana occasionally.

It also says that the broad ban and the government’s effort to defend it are “at odds with” the Trump administration’s move to federally reschedule cannabis.

The government “asks us to conclude that anyone who regularly uses marijuana is categorically violent and dangerous without any further showing,” the opinion says. “All based on little more than its current say-so, one at odds with its own regulatory actions. And affording the government that kind of ‘broad power to designate any group as dangerous and thereby disqualify its members from having a gun’ would risk allowing it to ‘quickly swallow’ the Second Amendment.”

The court’s opinion in U.S. vs. Hemani does not address “efforts to ban addicts, or those presently intoxicated, from possessing a firearm,” it says. “We do not address other prophylactic laws Congress might adopt after determining that users of a particular drug pose a special risk of misusing firearms. We do not address 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(1)’s provision disarming individuals convicted of felonies (often including drug-related ones).”

“We do not even address whether the government could bring a prosecution under §922(g)(3) accompanied by individualized proof that the defendant’s use of marijuana (or any other drug) renders him a danger to himself or others. Or proof that a certain drug always renders its users dangerous because of its potency or for some other reason. None of those issues is before us and we do not pass on them either way.”

“All that is before us is one, if surely ambitious, theory. The government maintains that it may automatically strip Mr. Hemani of his Second Amendment right to possess a firearm because he uses marijuana a few times a week,” Gorsuch wrote. “More than that, because he possessed a gun despite this prohibition, the government insists it may imprison him for up to 15 years and disarm him for life.”

“According to the government, none of this turns on how much marijuana Mr. Hemani uses or what effect it has on him. It makes no difference either if he keeps a firearm only in his home for selfdefense, never misuses a gun while intoxicated, and never poses a danger to himself or others as a result of his marijuana use. The only thing the government must show, it says, is that an individual like Mr. Hemani regularly uses any amount of any controlled substance.”

The court’s opinion details recent large-scale federal policy changes concerning marijuana, and how they undermine the broad statute seeking to strip cannabis consumers of their Second Amendment rights.

Keep reading

Pete Buttigieg Throws Support Behind Democrats’ Extreme Court-Packing Gambit

It’s a day that ends in “y,” which means yet another high-ranking Democrat is backing his party’s extreme proposal to pack the Supreme Court with left-wing ideologues.

Biden Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg threw his support behind the radical power-grab while speaking at a Rainbow PUSH Coalition event on Thursday. In his remarks to attendees, the prospective 2028 Democrat presidential contender accused SCOTUS of acting in a “rogue” fashion and “eviscerat[ing] the Voting Rights Act” by upholding the Constitution.

The comments are seemingly in response to the high court’s recent Louisiana v. Callais decision, which deemed Louisiana’s drawing of a second majority-black congressional district to be an “unconstitutional racial gerrymander.” The ruling more notably kneecapped states’ ability to engage in race-based redistricting — a strategy favored by Democrats to draw districts in their party’s favor.

After his unhinged screed about Callais, Buttigieg was asked by the event moderator for his thoughts on “some really progressive ideas” about how to handle “that rogue Supreme Court.” He more specifically pressed Buttigieg on the proposal to “increas[e] the number of justices” as a way of getting rulings that Democrats favor.

Without hesitation, the former Transportation secretary appeared to fully endorse the plan.

“Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that there have to be nine Supreme Court justices,” Buttigieg said to applause from the audience. “That one doesn’t even take a constitutional amendment. It just takes a readiness to set up a court that fits this country.”

The potential 2028 contender went on to echo disingenuous arguments by fellow Democrats that packing the court with four new justices would allow it to have one justice per federal circuit court, which the justices are tasked with overseeing. He further argued that implementing such a plan would create a “process that makes it less partisan.”

“We cannot have partisan warfare every time there’s an opening on the court,” Buttigieg said, while ignoring his party’s reputation for engaging in such damaging antics. “So, I think term limits would help, but I don’t think they go far enough.”

Keep reading

Supreme Court Allows Alabama to Use Congressional Map that Favors Republicans – Sotomayor Fumes

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday evening allowed Alabama to use its 2023 congressional map that favors Republicans in the upcoming midterm elections.

Last week, Alabama asked the Supreme Court to intervene after a lower court blocked its new congressional map.

Alabama’s request to toss out its racist, gerrymandered congressional map comes after the Supreme Court last month declared Louisiana’s newly-drawn Congressional map an unconstitutional gerrymander.

The case, State of Louisiana v. Phillip Callais (and the related Press Robinson v. Phillip Callais), stems from Louisiana’s woke lawmakers caving to left-wing judges and creating a second “majority-minority” congressional district.

Last week, a three-judge panel ruled that Alabama’s new congressional map violated the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

Alabama state officials asked the Supreme Court to overturn the lower court’s decision.

On Tuesday evening, the Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision upheld Alabama’s Congressional map that will likely result in 6-1 R-D.

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor fumed in a dissent with whom Jackson and Kagan joined.

“Before the Court are two paths. Down one lies an orderly election, held under a tried-and-tested congressional map that protects Black Alabamians’ right to vote and with which all voters, elections officials, and candidates alike are familiar,” Sotomayor wrote.

“Down the other lies a chaotic election, held under a never-before-used congressional map that intentionally discriminates against Black Alabamians, that Alabama adopted in unashamed defiance of a prior court order directly affirmed by this Court, and that will require officials to change the voter registrations of hundreds of thousands of voters in just days at best, a task that Alabama previously represented would take months,” Sotomayor said.

“The majority chooses the second path and disregardsboth democratic values and the rule of law. I respectfully dissent,” she wrote.

Keep reading

Thomas and Alito Take a Regrettable Position in a Qualified Immunity Case

Qualified immunity is a judge-made doctrine that routinely shields bad cops from facing civil lawsuits over their abusive and unconstitutional behavior. All too often, a federal judge will hear a case in which a clear constitutional violation occurred, only to then shield the offending officer anyway from facing civil liability over the blatant misconduct. It’s a legal doctrine that deserves to be abolished.

Occasionally, however, the officer will lose one of these cases, and qualified immunity will be denied. That’s what happened last year in Hart v. Grand Rapids, in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit actually let a federal civil rights lawsuit proceed against a Michigan police officer whose use of deadly force against a protester was officially reprimanded by his own superiors because of how the officer’s actions violated the department’s training and procedures.

That officer subsequently appealed his loss to the U.S. Supreme Court, which finally turned him down earlier this week, thereby leaving the 6th Circuit’s denial of qualified immunity undisturbed. The civil rights suit against the officer will now move forward in federal court, a welcome result. To be clear, the officer may still prevail in the end, but at least his alleged victim will now get the chance to seek redress for a credible constitutional rights violation.

What makes this case especially notable, in addition to the all-too-rare denial of qualified immunity, is the fact that two members of the Supreme Court went out of their way to let us know just how eager they were to rule in the offending officer’s favor.

In the view of Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, the officer in this case was fully entitled to receive qualified immunity and to be shielded from facing civil suit. If it were up to Thomas and Alito, the 6th Circuit’s judgment against the officer would have been summarily reversed.

I am sometimes asked which members of the Supreme Court are the most reliably libertarian on various legal matters, such as criminal justice. After clarifying that nobody on the current Supreme Court is a truly consistent legal libertarian on anything, I typically say something to the effect that Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch usually tend to give libertarians the most reasons to cheer on matters of criminal justice.

This case presents us with the flip side of that coin. When viewed from a libertarian legal perspective, Thomas and Alito tend to stand out as the worst on criminal justice issues. In far too many cases, Thomas and Alito have exhibited a kind of overriding deference to law enforcement that undermines the Bill of Rights and thwarts government accountability. Their actions this week continue that unfortunate trend.

Keep reading

SCOTUS Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s Va. home targeted in ‘swatting’ hoax

The Fairfax County, Virginia, home of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett is the latest target of a malicious “swatting” attempt, prompting a rapid law enforcement coordination that quickly exposed the emergency call as a hoax.

At approximately 9:02 pm on Wednesday evening, police received a call to their non-emergency line reporting active gunfire outside of the justice’s suburban residence.

Officers contacted security at the residence and quickly determined the report was a false call intended to swat the home. Swatting is the illegal act of making a false report of a violent or high-risk incident in order to trigger a heavily armed police response to an unsuspecting person’s address.

“Officers immediately coordinated with Supreme Court Police personnel assigned to the residence and quickly determined that the report was fictitious. No additional police resources were utilized,” the police department said. 

Barrett’s home has also previously been a focal point of chaotic demonstrations, drawing persistent crowds of abortion-rights activists following the High Court’s landmark 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) weighed in on the reports, characterizing the hoax as an attempt to get an innocent person killed, in this case, a sitting Supreme Court justice. He suggested the proper response will be putting the offender in prison for “many, many years.”

Keep reading

Supreme Court rejects Meta’s appeal in Vermont social media addiction case

The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a push to avoid a lawsuit alleging that Facebook and Instagram harmed young users, a decision that comes as social media companies increasingly face legal scrutiny.

Parent company Meta Platforms Inc. appealed after Vermont’s highest court allowed a suit filed by its attorney general in 2023 to move forward. The company is facing similar lawsuits from states across the country, accusing it of knowingly designing addictive features.

Meta had argued that it can’t be sued in Vermont court because neither the company nor the app design has specific ties to the state. Vermont countered that the sites’ large number of teen users gives its courts jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal in a brief, unexplained order, as is typical. The procedural decision comes after court losses for Meta and YouTube in social media addiction lawsuits in California and New Mexico.

Vermont’s lawsuit was filed after an investigation by a bipartisan coalition of attorneys general in several states. Newspaper reports based on Meta’s own research also found that the company knew about the harms Instagram can cause teenagers — especially teen girls — when it comes to mental health and body image issues. One internal study cited 13.5% of teen girls saying Instagram makes thoughts of suicide worse and 17% of teen girls saying it makes eating disorders worse.

Almost all teens ages 13 to 17 in the U.S. report using a social media platform, with about a third saying they use social media “almost constantly,” according to the Pew Research Center.

Meta, for its part, has said that it has already introduced dozens of tools to support teens and their families and suggested it would have worked with the states on standards for youth social media use.

Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark applauded the decision, saying it affirms “that companies that choose to do business in Vermont, like Meta, can be held accountable when they harm kids.”

Keep reading

Justice Clarence Thomas Blasts Supreme Court For Refusing To Hear Florida’s Lawsuit Against Blue States Issuing Driver’s Licenses To Illegal Alien Truckers

Justice Clarence Thomas delivered a scathing dissent Tuesday as the Supreme Court refused to let Florida sue California and Washington over their lawless practice of handing out commercial driver’s licenses to illegal aliens who cannot read English road signs.

The Court denied Florida’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint in the original jurisdiction case, leaving the state with “nowhere else to bring” its claims, Thomas wrote. He was joined by Justice Samuel Alito.

This decision comes after the horrific August 12, 2025, crash on the Florida Turnpike. Illegal alien Harjinder Singh, an Indian national who entered the U.S. illegally through the Mexican border, obtained CDLs from both California and Washington despite failing English proficiency tests at least ten times in Washington and once in California.

Singh approached a clearly marked “no U-turn” sign for official use only, ignored it, and swung his massive tractor-trailer across both lanes of the highway. The trailer crushed a minivan traveling behind him. All three passengers in the minivan were killed.

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration testing after the crash confirmed Singh could not correctly answer most verbal questions and identified only one out of four highway signs.

Keep reading

Panel of Leftist Federal Judges Defy Supreme Court, Order Alabama to Reinstate its Rigged and Racially Gerrymandered Congressional Map

A panel of leftist judges decided to snub the United States Supreme Court and throw out a perfectly constitutional redistricting map today.

As The Associated Press reported, a three-judge panel in Alabama’s redistricting case issued a preliminary injunction barring the state from switching maps.

It requires Alabama to continue using the 5-2 racially gerrymandered map the court ordered for congressional elections in 2024. The state had recently voted to reinstate its old map, which was 6-1 Republican.

This also means Democrats will regain an additional Black-majority seat for now.

This is after the Supreme Court SPECIFICALLY ruled that racial gerrymandering was unconstitutional.

The AP reported:

Federal judges on Tuesday temporarily blocked Alabama’s plan to use a new congressional map that could give Republicans an advantage in a key House race in the midterm elections.

A three-judge panel in the state’s long-running redistricting case issued the preliminary injunction that prevents the state, at least for now, from switching maps. It requires the state to continue using the same court-ordered districts that were used for congressional elections in 2024.

Lawyers representing Black voters in the state’s lengthy redistricting case had sought the preliminary injunction, arguing the same panel in 2023 found the state map was intentionally discriminatory against Black voters. They also argued Alabama was creating chaos by trying to change lines in the middle of an election year.

Keep reading

Trump Scores SCOTUS Win In Battle Over Immigration Judges’ ‘Work-Related Speech’

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously sided with the Trump administration on Tuesday in a dispute involving its policy regulating immigration judges’ “work-related speech.”

In its per curiam opinion, the high court vacated and remanded a decision by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals that centered around the government’s rules governing the executive’s immigration courts. The specific policy in question — which was enacted in October 2021 under the Biden administration — required immigration judges “to obtain supervisory approval for public speeches relating to their official duties” and was designed “to ensure that employee speech which may be seen as bearing the ‘imprimatur’ of the Office is consistent with its official positions,” according to SCOTUS.

The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) challenged the rule in federal court, arguing that it violated its members’ First and Fifth Amendment rights. As noted by the Supreme Court, however, under the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA), Congress “intended” for federal employees to bring “most work-related grievances” to the executive’s Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and the Special Counsel — “not to federal district court.”

According to SCOTUS, the district court overseeing the case dismissed the NAIJ’s argument that its members’ constitutional claims “were not the kind of work-related claims that Congress intended to steer out of district court.” It held that it lacked jurisdiction over the matter, and that the CSRA “covered” respondent’s claims.

While agreeing with the district court’s conclusions that the NAIJ’s claims were covered by the CSRA and that Congress precluded district courts from overseeing such matters, the 4th Circuit panel nevertheless vacated the lower court’s ruling based on “factual circumstances” that it said “called into question” whether the CSRA was “functioning as Congress intended.” The appellate court further remanded the case back to the district court “for factfinding into the current operation of the MSPB,” as summarized by SCOTUS.

In vacating and remanding that decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the 4th Circuit’s actions were “based on an issue the parties had not raised” throughout litigation. By all accounts, the high court reasoned, the 4th Circuit’s decision “violated the party presentation principle when it decided ‘a case different from the one [respondent] advanced.’”

“Federal courts are not ‘roving commissions’ … licensed to ‘”sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right.”‘ … The Court of Appeals lost sight of those principles here,” the justices ruled.

While concurring with the court’s judgement, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas authored a separate opinion in the matter. Joined by Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Bush 41 appointee explained why he believed the 4th Circuit’s ruling “was also wrong on the merits.”

“The Fourth Circuit’s analysis bears little resemblance to legal interpretation. Neither the President’s view that he can remove federal executive officials … nor his having done so, change the meaning of the statute or the binding nature of this Court’s interpretation of it,” Thomas wrote.

Keep reading

SCOTUS Case Makes Freight Brokers Responsible For Crashes Caused By Commercial Immigrant Drivers

hirty people died in 17 semi-truck crashes caused by noncitizen commercial truck drivers in 2025, according to the Department of Transportation. That number is almost certainly an undercount. Prior to 2025, the immigration status of a commercial truck driver was mostly not recorded in crash reports, court filings, or news coverage. The national conversation focuses on the truck driver at fault for the latest accident, but rarely goes deeper. Why was this truck driver on the highways? What trucking company hired him? How are operations like this still in business?

Somewhere between receiving a package from the distribution center to your doorstep, there is a strong possibility that a freight broker was involved. Freight brokers exist to manage freight and risk for shippers, and to hire motor carriers (trucking companies) to haul that freight. They collect the margin between what the shipper pays them and what they pay the trucking company.

Until a Supreme Court ruling earlier this month, it was not considered the freight broker’s problem whether the trucking company it hired had a history of terrible safety violations, employed properly trained drivers, or safely maintained its trucks. Brokers had little reason not to hire cheaper, non-compliant trucking companies over compliant ones.

On May 14, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, and found that freight brokers can be held legally responsible for negligently hiring unsafe trucking companies.

Before the ruling, a freight broker’s liability depended on which state the crash occurred in. Negligent hiring claims against freight brokers have proceeded for years in the Sixth and Ninth Circuits, but not in the Seventh (Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin) and Eleventh (Alabama, Florida, and Georgia) Circuits, as freight brokers claimed preemption by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994. This left semi-truck crash victims in different parts of the country with fundamentally different legal options against the same class of defendant.

When a freight broker hired a trucking company, and that company’s truck driver caused a wreck that killed someone, the broker often walked away. The trucking company absorbed the liability, the family absorbed the loss, and when the verdict exceeded the carrier’s $750,000 minimum insurance coverage (a federal floor set in 1980 and never adjusted for inflation), the family absorbed that too. The middleman who chose the trucking company and profited from the load often faced no legal consequence.

Keep reading