Tag: scotus

Supreme Court Unanimously Agrees To Curb Environmental Red Tape That Slows Down Construction Projects

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Utah railroad project on Thursday, setting a precedent that could make it easier to build things in the United States. 

The case at hand—Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County—involved an 88-mile-long railroad track in an oil-rich and rural area of Utah. The project would have connected this area to the national rail network, making it easier and more efficient to transport crude oil extracted in the region to refineries in Gulf Coast states. 

In 2020, a group of seven Utah counties known as the Seven Counties Infrastructure Coalition submitted its application to the federal Surface Transportation Board (STB) for the project. During its review process, the board conducted six public meetings and collected over 1,900 comments to produce an environmental impact statement (EIS)—which is required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)—that spanned over 3,600 pages. The board approved the project’s construction in 2021.

Before construction could begin, however, Eagle County, Colorado, and several environmental groups filed suit, challenging the STB’s approval. Specifically, this coalition argued that the STB did not consider the downstream environmental effects of the project—such as increased oil drilling in Utah and refining in the Gulf Coast. The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreed with the plaintiffs and vacated the railroad’s construction approval. 

In an 8–0 decision on Thursday (Justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself from the case), the Supreme Court overturned the lower court’s ruling. 

In its majority opinion, authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the Court clarified that under NEPA the STB “did not need to evaluate potential environmental impacts of the separate upstream and downstream projects.” The Court concluded that the “proper judicial approach for NEPA cases is straightforward: Courts should review an agency’s EIS to check that it addresses the environmental effects of the project at hand. The EIS need not address the effects of separate projects.”

This statement “is particularly significant for infrastructure projects, such as pipelines or transmission lines, and should help reduce NEPA’s burdens (at least at the margins),” wrote Jonathan Adler, a law professor at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, in The Volokh Conspiracy. “The opinion will also likely hamper any future efforts, perhaps by Democratic administrations, to expand or restore more fulsome (and burdensome) NEPA requirements.”

One recent example is former President Joe Biden, who finalized rules requiring federal agencies to consider a project’s impacts on climate change—a global issue that is incredibly complex and hard to forecast—in their NEPA analyses. The Trump administration recently rescinded this requirement. 

Kavanaugh’s opinion also clarified that courts should “afford substantial deference” to federal agencies in their EIS reviews and “should not micromanage” agency choices “so long as they fall within a broad zone of reasonableness.” 

This point could reduce one of the largest delays caused by NEPA: litigation. Since its passage in 1969, NEPA has been weaponized by environmental groups to stunt disfavored projects—which has disproportionately impacted clean energy projects. On average, these challenges delay a permitted project’s start time by 4.2 years, according to The Breakthrough Institute.

The increased threat of litigation has forced federal agencies to better cover their bases, leading to longer and more expensive environmental reviews. With courts deferring more to agency decisions, litigation could be settled more quickly.  

Keep reading

Justices Alito, Thomas blast SCOTUS for passing on censorship of ‘only two genders’ student

When the Supreme Court put the onus on states to set their own abortion policies with 2022’s Dobbs ruling, it unexpectedly subjected pro-life activists and their legislative allies to an onslaught of abortion-expansion proposals that made it into even red states’ laws, with a pro-life research group concluding last week that abortions are rising.

By passing on a case that sought to protect student expression that questions gender ideology from censorship in public schools, SCOTUS may similarly send free speech, gender-critical, religious freedom, conservative and pro-life advocates scrambling at the state and school district levels to protect nondisruptive speech at odds with progressive shibboleths.

The high court Tuesday turned away pleas from those advocates and Republican state attorneys general to hear and reverse the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against Liam Morrison, upholding his Massachusetts middle school’s ban on wearing shirts that read “there are only two genders” and, after his first punishment, “there are only censored genders.” 

First Circuit Chief Judge David Barron – previously a Justice Department lawyer known for secretly advising the president who later nominated him that Barack Obama could legally kill Americans by drone strike – had portrayed the issue as a matter of judicial deference.

Keep reading

Only SCOTUS Can Rein In The Judicial Coup

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on May 15 on what has become a debilitating, critical crisis: the issuance of nationwide injunctions en masse by federal district court judges.

Notably, the overwhelming majority of those judges are Democrat appointees who seek to prevent President Donald Trump from doing what he was elected to do: govern. According to a lawsuit tracker by the Associated Press, more than 200 lawsuits have been filed against Trump’s executive orders.

In three consolidated cases from Washington, Maryland, and Massachusetts, federal district court judges issued nationwide injunctions (sometimes called universal injunctions or, to quote Justice Neil Gorsuch, “cosmic injunctions”) against the implementation of a Trump executive order ending universal birthright citizenship. The plaintiffs in those cases claim the order violates the 14th Amendment.

Those injunctions reflect a broader pattern. In less than four months, roughly 40 nationwide injunctions have been entered against the Trump administration — almost double the number entered during all four years of the Biden administration. As Solicitor General John Sauer pointed out, 35 have come “from the same five judicial districts.”

One could reasonably argue that the judges entering these orders are essentially attempting to undo the results of the last election by keeping in place Biden administration policies — policies that more than 77 million voters roundly rejected last November. These judges apparently believe they have more authority than the president to make decisions on everything from domestic and foreign policy to matters affecting national security and the military.

The Supreme Court should vigorously enforce its prior precedents (including its 1984 decision in U.S. v. Mendoza), which strictly limit the ability of a single unelected district court judge (of whom there are nearly 700) to keep the administration from achieving its policy objectives by ruling not just for those who filed a lawsuit but also for everyone who didn’t.

The court must also end the blatant judge-shopping and what amounts to a collective wholesale interference in the president’s constitutional authority as head of the executive branch.

The May 15 session was itself unusual — hopefully a sign that Chief Justice John Roberts finally recognizes the judicial crisis these lower court judges are causing. Typically, oral arguments end in April, and emergency requests for stays are usually decided on the pleadings without oral argument.

We have to wonder whether the chief justice was prompted to act in part by Justice Samuel Alito’s rather stinging March 5 dissent in Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition (a dissent joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh).

Keep reading

Supreme Court Stands By While Lower Courts Carry On Ripping Up The Constitution

There is a judicial coup underway in the U.S., and the Supreme Court is refusing to stop it. Yet another unpunished hit to the Constitution happened this week when a federal judge in Texas ordered President Donald Trump’s Department of Homeland Security to hand over sensitive communications with the El Salvadoran government about one of its Alien Enemies Act deportees.

In his initial order, Judge Keith P. Ellison of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas ordered the Trump administration to confirm the “current location and health status” of Venezuelan Widmer Josneyder Agelviz-Sanguino, who was allegedly one of the 238 deportees flown to the Terrorism Confinement Center in El Salvador, within 24 hours.

The Clinton appointee also demanded that the Trump administration disclose “the legal basis for his continued detention,” ensure Agelviz-Sanguino can establish contact with his lawyers, and detail “any logistical arrangements made with El Salvadoran authorities.”

After multiple extensions, the Trump administration handed over information to the judge under seal, according to legal news outlet Law & Crime. Ellison, however, deemed the documents insufficient and issued a subsequent order demanding that the U.S. government file a “declaration describing all actions taken by Defendants and the U.S. Embassy since May 19, 2025.”

The order claims to require details like “Names/titles of El Salvadoran officials contacted, methods of contact, and copies of all written communications” and “Timeline of follow-up attempts and plans to escalate such attempts if no response is received.” Ellison even mandated a description of the “specific El Salvadoran law cited as justification for Agelviz-Sanguino’s detention” down to the “Statute name, article number, English translation, and verification of its applicability to Venezuelan nationals.”

The Department of Justice appealed the order to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which issued an administrative stay on Ellison’s demands Friday morning.

As Will Chamberlain, senior counsel at The Article III Project noted, Ellison’s order is “completely insane.”

“Article III does not get to tell Article II how to conduct foreign affairs – nor does it get to surveil sensitive diplomatic discussions,” he wrote.

Yet, until the Supreme Court ends the unbridled injunction and order madness, the Trump administration is at the mercy of an unconstitutional supremacy that has infected even the furthest limbs of the judicial branch.

Keep reading

Supreme Court: Children Of Illegal Aliens Or Tourists Are Not U.S. Citizens

On the very day Donald Trump became president again, he signed an executive order prospectively eliminating birthright citizenship for children born to aliens unlawfully present in the United States.

Immediately, lawsuits were filed in a half-dozen jurisdictions across the country challenging this order.

The groups bringing these suits claim the order disrupts long-standing legal norms governing citizenship. Yet, in fact, Trump’s contention — that birthright citizenship is not possessed by children of illegal aliens under the “correct interpretation of the law” — is exactly right.

Birthright citizenship is conventionally understood to apply to any child born in the United States, regardless of the immigration status of that child’s parents. This view is based on the common law principle of jus soli (“right of soil”), which is said to be incorporated in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This understanding of the Citizenship Clause, however, despite its prevalence in academia and political commentary, is based on a mistaken and incomplete reading of controlling Supreme Court precedent.

In fact, birthright citizenship, as provided for in the Citizenship Clause, as that clause has been authoritatively construed by the Supreme Court, is possessed only by children born in the United States to at least one parent who is lawfully residing in the United States.

Ratified in the aftermath of the Civil War with the aim of remedying the injustices of the Dred Scott decision, the Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship to “all persons born … in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” This latter phrase has been wrongly equated with “subject to the laws thereof,” and thus to entail that all persons born in the United States are U.S. citizens, with only a few narrow exceptions, such as children born to diplomats.

Yet the Supreme Court has construed the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” more narrowly, most notably in seminal cases that have been taught — well or ill — in law schools ever since.

Keep reading

Supreme Court: Children of Illegal Aliens or Tourists are not U.S. Citizens

On the very day Donald Trump became president again, he signed an executive order prospectively eliminating birthright citizenship for children born to aliens unlawfully present in the United States.

Immediately, lawsuits were filed in a half-dozen jurisdictions across the country challenging this order.

The groups bringing these suits claim the order disrupts long-standing legal norms governing citizenship. Yet, in fact, Trump’s contention — that birthright citizenship is not possessed by children of illegal aliens under the “correct interpretation of the law” — is exactly right.

Birthright citizenship is conventionally understood to apply to any child born in the United States, regardless of the immigration status of that child’s parents. This view is based on the common law principle of jus soli (“right of soil”), which is said to be incorporated in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This understanding of the Citizenship Clause, however, despite its prevalence in academia and political commentary, is based on a mistaken and incomplete reading of controlling Supreme Court precedent.

In fact, birthright citizenship, as provided for in the Citizenship Clause, as that clause has been authoritatively construed by the Supreme Court, is possessed only by children born in the United States to at least one parent who is lawfully residing in the United States.

Ratified in the aftermath of the Civil War with the aim of remedying the injustices of the Dred Scott decision, the Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship to “all persons born … in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” This latter phrase has been wrongly equated with “subject to the laws thereof,” and thus to entail that all persons born in the United States are U.S. citizens, with only a few narrow exceptions, such as children born to diplomats.

Yet the Supreme Court has construed the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” more narrowly, most notably in seminal cases that have been taught — well or ill — in law schools ever since.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Overturns Maine’s Censure of Rep. Laurel Libby in Free Speech Ruling Over Trans Athlete Post

The US Supreme Court has stepped in to overturn the Maine legislature’s censure of Republican Representative Laurel Libby, marking a clear win for those opposing legislative punishments aimed at curbing political expression. The 7-2 ruling, issued Tuesday, instructed Maine lawmakers to rescind the sanctions they imposed on Libby over a social media post that identified a transgender high school athlete who had placed first in a girls’ pole vault event.

We obtained a copy of the opinion for you here.

The Court found that Libby’s claim merited immediate relief, stating that her right to be free from censure for speech made in her official capacity was “indisputably clear.” Since February, the censure had effectively stripped Libby of her ability to participate in floor debates or vote on legislative matters unless she apologized, a condition she steadfastly rejected.

Following the ruling, Libby posted a celebratory message on X: “This is a victory not just for my constituents, but for the Constitution itself. The Supreme Court has affirmed what should NEVER have been in question — that no state legislature has the power to silence an elected official simply for speaking truthfully about issues that matter.”

Keep reading

Supreme Court Rules Police No Longer Immune In Escalated Deadly Force Encounters

In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected a legal doctrine that helped shield police from accountability for recklessly escalating confrontations and then using deadly force.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Barnes v. Felix makes clear that when determining whether an officer’s use of deadly force was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, courts must examine the entire sequence of events—not just the split second in which an officer claims to perceive a threat before firing a weapon. The decision strikes down the so-called “moment-of-threat doctrine,” which allowed officers to escape scrutiny for their own prior misconduct and reckless provocation. Going forward, judges must weigh all relevant circumstances, including the severity of the alleged offense, the officer’s actions leading up to the use of force, and the actual threat posed by the individual. The Rutherford Institute filed an amicus brief urging the Court to overturn the moment-of-threat rule, arguing that it violated longstanding constitutional principles and fostered a culture of impunity among law enforcement.

“For too long, our justice system has enabled a kind of legalized lawlessness, where police are empowered to escalate encounters and then respond with deadly force, knowing the courts will look the other way,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “This decision is a powerful counterbalance to the Trump Administration’s efforts to shield police from the consequences of unconstitutional behavior. While the executive branch attempts to entrench a culture of impunity, the Supreme Court has hopefully drawn a constitutional line in the sand—one that signals a long-overdue shift in how police can use deadly force.”

On April 28, 2016, a police officer in Harris County, Texas, stopped Ashtian Barnes based on a report of unpaid tolls linked to his license plate. When asked for proof of insurance, Barnes explained that the car had been rented a week earlier by his girlfriend and the paperwork might be in the trunk. Claiming to smell marijuana, the officer ordered Barnes to open the trunk and exit the vehicle. Barnes opened his door but also turned the ignition back on. At that point, the officer shouted at Barnes not to move, stepped onto the driver-side doorsill, and shoved his gun into Barnes’s head. The car started to move, and the officer fired two shots into the car, killing Barnes. The incident was captured on video. Although Barnes’s mother sued, lower courts dismissed the case—ruling that the moment of threat during the two seconds when the officer was standing on the moving vehicle justified deadly force, without considering the officer’s role in creating the danger.

The Supreme Court’s decision sends the case back to the lower courts for reconsideration under the proper constitutional standard. The Barnes decision comes as the nation reckons with the 30-year legacy of the 1994 Crime Bill, which dramatically expanded the power and protection of law enforcement at the expense of constitutional rights. As The Rutherford Institute has warned, the Crime Bill ushered in an era of “zero tolerance” policing and mass incarceration, laying the groundwork for the militarized and unaccountable police culture we see today. “The Court’s decision is an overdue course correction. But it is only a first step,” Whitehead said. “Law enforcement should not be allowed to operate beyond the reach of the Constitution.”

Keep reading

Obama Judge Says to Hell with the Supreme Court, Orders Trump DOJ to Turn Over Docs Related to Decision to Revoke ‘Protected Status’ for Hundreds of Thousands of Migrants

US District Court Judge Edward Chen, an Obama appointee, said to hell with the Supreme Court and still ordered the Trump DOJ to turn over documents related to its decision to revoke protected status for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan migrants.

Judge Chen said the Supreme Court’s ruling today is not a factor and insisted on a deadline tonight for the Trump DOJ to turn over the documents.

The US Supreme Court on Monday lifted a lower court’s block on President Trump’s order to revoke ‘protected status’ for hundreds of thousands of migrants living in the US.

The high court allowed the Trump Administration to strip approximately 350,000 Venezuelans currently in the US of their ‘protected status.’

Ketanji Brown Jackson was the lone Supreme Court justice to dissent.

In March, San Francisco-based Judge Edward Chen issued a stay on Trump’s order to revoke Temporary Restricted Status (TPS) for Venezuelans who arrived to the US on Biden’s parole program.

Judge Chen, temporarily paused Trump’s plans to end Biden’s TPS program.

The DOJ argued that the parole programs were discretionary and it is up to the government to decide when it can cut the program.

It was previously reported that President Trump was set to strip the status of 532,000 migrants living in the United States who were flown in on Joe Biden’s parole program.

Recall that Joe Biden brought in more than half a million migrants from Haiti, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela on his CHNV program.

Keep reading

SCOTUS: Trump Can Deport 350K Venezuelans Biden Allowed To Break The Law

The Supreme Court issued an order on Monday agreeing that the Trump administration had the constitutional authority to remove the Biden-era temporary protections for hundreds of thousands of migrants who were allowed to remain in the country under the previous administration.

The court placed a hold on a lower court order that blocked Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem from removing “Temporary Protected Status” (TPS) for Venezuelans. Only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. TPS permits migrants to work and live in the country if their native country is deemed unsafe.

The Supreme Court’s decision could mean some 350,000 Venezuelans can be deported.

As reported by The Federalist’s Breccan Thies, three days before President Trump took office, then DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas extended the TPS designation for Venezuelans living in the country. The extension was for 18 months. Noem then “vacated the extension and subsequently terminated TPS for Venezuelans who had registered for it in 2023,” Thies reported.

In response “National TPS Alliance, an organization representing those with TPS, and a group of Venezuelans turned around and sued the Trump administration.” The suit alleged the termination of TPS was race-based — without considering that the United States has the right to decide which foreigners are admitted into the United States.

The Trump administration argued in a subsequent motion that Mayorkas “failed, among other things, to evaluate the key statutory question: whether permitting Venezuelan and Haitian nationals to remain temporarily in the United States is ‘contrary to the national interest.’”

An Obama-appointed judge issued a nationwide injunction, and the Ninth Circuit rejected an appeal by the Trump administration. While the protections were “set to expire on April 7,” the judge, as described by the Associated Press, found that “the expiration threatened to severely disrupt the lives of hundreds of thousands of people and could cost billions in lost economic activity.”

The Trump administration contended that the ruling from the lower court amounted to judicial overreach, an issue that has plagued Trump’s first few months in office.

Keep reading