Tag: scotus

SUPREME COURT Sides with Trump Administration in Major 6-3 Immigration WIN — Makes It Far Easier to Deport Criminal Green Card Holders Accused of Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude

The U.S. Supreme Court delivered another significant immigration victory for the Trump administration on Tuesday, ruling 6-3 that federal immigration officials do not need “clear and convincing evidence” at the border before treating a lawful permanent resident accused of certain crimes as an applicant for admission.

Justice Clarence Thomas delivers the hammer: Border officers making “quick judgments on the spot” do NOT need clear and convincing evidence of guilt at the moment of parole. Proof can come later at removal proceedings.

The Court sided with the Trump administration in Blanche v. Lau, rejecting activist attempts to tie the hands of border officers and making it significantly easier to remove lawful permanent residents who commit serious crimes.

The case involved Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese national who became a green card holder in 2007. In May 2012, while facing criminal charges in New Jersey for selling nearly $300,000 worth of counterfeit clothing (a clear crime involving moral turpitude), Lau took a trip to China.

When he tried to return through JFK Airport in June 2012, immigration officers did exactly what they were supposed to do: they paroled him into the country instead of formally admitting him as a returning resident because of the pending charges.

That parole decision was critical. It allowed the Department of Homeland Security to later treat Lau as an applicant for admission rather than automatically being allowed back into the country as a green card holder.

After he pleaded guilty in 2013 to trademark counterfeiting and received probation, DHS moved to remove him on inadmissibility grounds.

After Lau later pleaded guilty to the counterfeiting charge, the federal government initiated removal proceedings. However, the Second Circuit intervened and ruled that border officials needed “clear and convincing evidence” that Lau had committed the crime before treating him as an applicant for admission.

The Supreme Court rejected that argument outright.

Keep reading

The Burden Of History: Justice Jackson’s Curious Call To Overturn Critical 2nd Amendment Precedent

Since her confirmation in 2022, Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson has established a legacy that is fast becoming one of the most radical in the Court’s history. Her sole dissents have drawn sharp criticism from both her conservative and liberal colleagues. However, for critics of some of these decisions, Justice Jackson continues to publish opinions that are not just, as she describes it, cathartic but chilling. Worse yet, the latest judicial jump scare was shared by her colleague, Justice Sonya Sotomayor, in her concurring opinion in United States v. Hemani..

At issue in the case was an effort to prosecute Ali Hemani for recreational use of marijuana, a prosecution that threatened up to 15 years and to strip him of his gun rights under  18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)

Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch ruled that the provision was not “consistent with the Second Amendment.” Gorsuch noted that Hemani was not alleged to be a drug addict or to have used his guns in a menacing manner.

Gorsuch wrote that the “historical laws on which it relies targeted different kinds of people, did so for different reasons, and operated in different ways.”

However, Jackson used the concurrence to argue for overturning NYSRPA v. Bruen, a case critical to laying the foundation for interpreting the Second Amendment based on historical precedent. Jackson lashed out at the”‘history and tradition’ metric” and called for the Court to “revisit” the case.

Declaring Bruen “unworkable,” Jackson called for the restoration of the “means-end scrutiny – the approach courts applied before we adopted Bruen’s ‘history and tradition’ metric – offers a more rational way of assessing the constitutionality of firearm regulations.”

The reason for undoing Bruen? According to Jackson, “it imposes on judges the unfamiliar and difficult tasks of sifting through centuries-old evidence in order to answer ‘contested historical questions,’ and ‘applying those answers to resolve contemporary problems.'”

Justice Jackson added that “Given those challenges, it is unsurprising that Bruen’s test is vulnerable to inconsistent and arbitrary application, as judges draw different conclusions from the same historical evidence and reach divergent assessments of the same laws.”

The burden of actually seeking to understand the intended meaning of a constitutional provision is certainly greater than the more free-style approach of Jackson who focused on how to “resolve contemporary problems” under a living Constitution. However, to suggest that her outcome-determinative approach is less inconsistent and arbitrary is only true when you control the Court with justices who have like-minded “solutions” for contemporary problems.

That is precisely what many Democrats have in mind as they openly pledge to pack the Court with an insistent liberal majority if they can retake power. Moreover, Jackson is often cited as the model of the left, a justice who is unburdened by the language and history of constitutional provisions.

Just last week, liberal Wisconsin State Supreme Court justices heralded Jackson’s approach in arguing for the restoration of race-based gerrymandering. The state jurists lamented not being able to interpret the Constitution to address the “harms this country has caused to those who are marginalized, disempowered, or disenfranchised,” including the “preference for White Americans and to burden Black Americans and those of other disadvantaged races or backgrounds.”

These federal and state Supreme Court opinions are a glimpse into what awaits the country if Democratic leaders carry out their threat to take over the Supreme Court by adding four liberal justices in the image of Justice Jackson.

Keep reading

Kamala Harris Says Dems Should “Exploit” Packing SCOTUS to Give Puerto Rico and DC Statehood, “Look At” Abolishing Electoral College – Admits Why She Actually Lost in 2024

Failed Presidential candidate Kamala Harris did an interview with disgraced ex CNN host Don Lemon on Friday, where she admitted her radical agenda for the White House if she runs again, which is likely. 

Harris signaled in April that she may run for president again.

She told Lemon that she wants to pack the Supreme Court with four more justices to pass far-left policies like DC and Puerto Rico statehood, which would give the Democrats four more Senate seats.

On the Supreme Court, she said, “I’ve been saying for quite some time I think that we absolutely have to explore what we need to do because of this Supreme Court and what it has done to destroy so many of the elements of the Constitution that were designed to protect, in particular, the minority, those who were marginalized, including expansion of the Supreme Court.”

“I absolutely believe that we should be exploiting that, and the idea of 13, I agree, because there are 13 circuit courts, 13 justices. I think that we should be looking at statehood for Puerto Rico and DC. I think we should be looking at when we win the majority in the House and in the Senate for the Senate Judiciary to have and to create rules that include that if there is a nominee to the Supreme Court before them, who is clearly lying that there be some consequence, and that we say to Democrats, at the very least, who are members of Senate Judiciary, that you need to be prepared to actually put some rules in place and enforce them if people come before you and are breaking the ethical rules of responsibility around taking an oath and telling the truth to that committee,” she continued.

“I think there’s a lot of work that we need to do, including considering an expansion of the court, yes.”

Keep reading

Five things to know about pesticides, cancer and a pending Supreme Court ruling

After years of lawsuits against agrichemical companies and battles over environmental regulations, the nation’s highest court is expected to rule this summer on a case that could significantly alter the pesticide industry.

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule next month on whether lawsuits can be brought against pesticide and herbicide makers over claims their products have caused cancer. 

The court heard arguments in the case in April, and the justices appeared split.

With a ruling weeks away, here are five things to know about the topic of pesticide use and cancer.

1. Geographic correlation between heavy pesticide use and high cancer rates

Numerous studies and an analysis of federal data have shown a potential correlation between pesticide use and cancer. Out of the 500 U.S. counties with the highest pesticide use per square mile (largely concentrated in corn, soybean and fruit-producing states like Iowa, Illinois, Missouri, California and Florida), 60% have cancer rates higher than the national average of 460 cases per 100,000 people. A 2024 study in Frontiers in Cancer Control and Society suggests the impact of pesticide use on cancer incidence may rival that of smoking.

2. Thousands of lawsuits have been won against agrichemical companies

State courts have also found that correlation credible, as Bayer, the maker of the herbicide Roundup, has lost thousands of cases and agreed to pay more than $12 billion in settlements, including individual jury verdicts such as an initial $2 billion award in California and a recent $1.25 million verdict in Missouri. According to the company, more than 65,000 lawsuits have been filed by farmers, gardeners and other users alleging the chemical caused their cancer.

3. Companies push for ‘liability shields‘

In response to these lawsuits, agrichemical companies have aggressively lobbied for state-level bans on this type of litigation. Often referred to as “liability shield” laws, they would essentially say that because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has not warned of a link to cancer, state-level claims would be void. Georgia and North Dakota are the only two states that have passed these liability shield laws. 

4. The Trump administration has largely sided with pesticide makers

The push for stricter pesticide regulation has created unusual alliances between left-leaning environmentalists and conservative health advocates under the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) banner. 

After an initial Health and Human Services report linked pesticide overuse to childhood health issues, the agency’s final report last year walked back all regulatory calls and instead pivoted to promote public confidence in current EPA standards. President Trump also signed an executive order this year declaring glyphosate critical to national security, and his administration actively sided with Bayer during oral arguments before the Supreme Court.

In April, MAHA activists celebrated a win after the House voted to remove a pesticide industry-backed provision from its farm bill. The debate is expected to continue as the Senate drafts its own version of the farm bill. 

5. Supreme Court hears arguments on national ‘liability shield’ ban

In April, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Monsanto v. Durnell, in which Monsanto (owned by Bayer) argued that because the EPA has ruled glyphosate is unlikely to be carcinogenic, federal law preempts states from requiring cancer warning labels or awarding damages through state juries. A decision is expected in July.

Keep reading

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