“The Supreme Court declined on Tuesday to wade into the so-called fetal personhood debate, deciding not to take up a case out of Rhode Island over whether fetuses should have constitutional rights,” CNN reports.
Justices Reject Challenge to Death Sentence
“The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned away a Black death row inmate’s appeal over claims he did not receive a fair trial because several jurors had expressed opposition to interracial relationships,” NBC News reports.
“The conservative majority court’s decision not to hear the case, over the dissent of the court’s three liberal justices, leaves in place Andre Thomas’s conviction and death sentence.”
Over Half of Americans Disapprove of Supreme Court
A new Annenberg Public Policy Center survey finds that 53% of U.S. adults disapprove of how the Supreme Court handles its job.
The survey also reveals a chasm between the qualities the American people say they value most in judges, such as fairness and impartiality, and the traits they perceive in Supreme Court justices.
Trump Appeals to Supreme Court Over Mar-a-Lago Search
“Former President Donald Trump has asked the Supreme Court to intervene in the dispute over materials the FBI seized from his Mar-a-Lago estate this summer,” CNN reports.
“His emergency request with Supreme Court is the latest example of the former President seeking to involve the justices in investigations that entangle him – at a time when the high court’s legitimacy in politically explosive cases is under intense scrutiny.”
Supreme Court Takes Up Key Voting Rights Case
“The Supreme Court is taking up an Alabama redistricting case that could have far-reaching effects on minority voting power across the United States,” the AP reports.
“The justices are hearing arguments Tuesday in the latest high-court showdown over the federal Voting Rights Act, lawsuits seeking to force Alabama to create a second Black majority congressional district. About 27% of Alabamians are Black, but they form a majority in just one of the state’s seven congressional districts.”
Nothing Backs the ‘Independent State Legislature’ Theory
J. Michael Luttig: “That as many as six justices on the Supreme Court have flirted with the independent-state-legislature theory over the past 20 years is baffling.”
“There is literally no support in the Constitution, the pre-ratification debates, or the history from the time of our nation’s founding or the Constitution’s framing for a theory of an independent state legislature that would foreclose state judicial review of state legislatures’ redistricting decisions. Indeed, there is overwhelming evidence that the Constitution contemplates and provides for such judicial review.”
Justices Decline Challenge to Biden’s Vaccine Mandate
“The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a challenge from 10 mostly conservative states that sued the Biden administration over its Covid-19 vaccine mandate for health care facilities that receive federal funding,” USA Today reports.
Justices Take Up Internet Firm Immunity Case
“The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to the sweeping legal immunity that shields internet companies from lawsuits over user-generated content, a case with potentially enormous consequences for social media,” USA Today reports.
“A provision of the 1996 Communications Decency Act known as Section 230 was intended to protect free expression on the internet by shielding internet companies from liability for much of the content their users post on their platforms. The law also protects the companies from lawsuits for removing content that violates their policies.”
Supreme Court Won’t Hear Mike Lindell’s Appeal
“The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal from a prominent supporter of former President Donald Trump who is trying to fend off a defamation suit from a voting company he falsely accused of rigging the 2020 election,” USA Today reports.
You Thought the Last Supreme Court Term Was Bad?
Ruth Marcus: “The cataclysmic Supreme Court term that included the unprecedented leak of a draft opinion and the end of constitutional protection for abortion would, in the normal ebb and flow, be followed by a period of quiet, to let internal wounds heal and public opinion settle.”
“That doesn’t appear likely in the term set to start Monday. Nothing in the behavior of the court’s emboldened majority suggests any inclination to pull back on the throttle. The Supreme Court is master of its docket, which means that it controls what cases it will hear, subject to the agreement of four justices. Already, with its calendar only partly filled, the justices have once again piled onto their agenda cases that embroil the court in some of the most inflammatory issues confronting the nation — and more are on the way.”
FiveThirtyEight: The Supreme Court is on the verge of killing the Voting Rights Act.
Supreme Court Poised to Keep Marching to Right
“With public confidence diminished and justices sparring openly over the institution’s legitimacy, the Supreme Court on Monday will begin a new term that could push American law to the right on issues of race, voting and the environment,” the AP reports.
“Following June’s momentous overturning of nearly 50 years of constitutional protections for abortion rights, the court is diving back in with an aggressive agenda that seems likely to split its six conservative justices from its three liberals.”
Supreme Court Seen As Out Of Touch
A new Monmouth poll finds 59% of Americans say the current Supreme Court is out of touch with the values and beliefs of most Americans.
Ketanji Brown Jackson Formally Sworn In
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was welcomed there with a traditional investiture ceremony attended by President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and their spouses, CNBC reports.
What to Expect from the New SCOTUS Term
The Economist: “Three months after scrapping abortion rights, fortifying the right to bear arms and bulldozing the church-state wall, the Supreme Court’s six-justice conservative majority will take to the bench on October 3rd to reconsider more areas of American law and life. Sprinkled among the 27 cases the court has agreed to hear in its new term (about half of its eventual docket) are a few that—like last year’s crop—offer opportunities to overhaul decades-old principles.”
“Among the longest-enduring precedents under review are decisions permitting universities to consider race in admissions.”
Supreme Court Trust at Historical Lows
A new Gallup poll finds 47% of U.S. adults say they have “a great deal” or “a fair amount” of trust in the Supreme Court.
This represents a 20-percentage-point drop from two years ago, including seven points since last year, and is now the lowest in Gallup’s trend by six points.
Washington Post: Supreme Court, dogged by questions of legitimacy, is ready to resume.
Federal Judge Decries GOP Leaders
“A federal judge delivered a blistering rebuke of Republican Party leaders Tuesday for what she said was a cynical attempt to stoke false claims of election fraud of the kind that fueled the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol,” Politico reports.
Said U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson: “The judiciary has to make it clear: It is not patriotism, it is not standing up for America to stand up for one man — who knows full well that he lost — instead of the Constitution he was trying to subvert.”
She added: “Some prominent figures in the Republican Party are cagily predicting or even outright calling for violence in the streets if one of the multiple investigations doesn’t go his way.”
Top State Judges Make Rare Plea to Supreme Court
The Conference of Chief Justices, a group representing the top state judicial officers in the nation, filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court urging the court to reject “a legal theory pressed by Republicans that would give state legislatures extraordinary power,” the New York Times reports.
“If the Supreme Court adopts the theory, it will radically reshape how federal elections are conducted by giving state lawmakers independent authority, not subject to review by state courts, to set election rules in conflict with state constitutions.”
Breyer Is ‘Very, Very, Very Sorry’ About Abortion Decision
Former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer lamented the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade in a CNN interview, saying he is “very, very, very sorry” about it.
Said Breyer: “Was I happy about it? Not for an instant. Did I do everything I could to persuade people? Of course, of course. But there we are and now we go on. We try to work together.”
He also condemned the leak of the draft opinion: “It was very damaging because that kind of thing just doesn’t happen. It just doesn’t happen. And there we are.”
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- …
- 94
- Next Page »