Below is my column in the Hill on the continuing confusion over national or universal injunctions. The last week has shown that this chronic injunctivitis must end.
St. Isidore of Seville may have overcome every obstacle in bringing knowledge and education to the world, but he could not overcome a tie on the Supreme Court. With the recusal of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School in Oklahoma City lost by default when the Court deadlocked on its constitutional challenge to being denied a charter in favor of secular schools. Tied 4-4, the result is that the lower court ruling stands against the school. Continue reading “St. Isidore Loses By Default: Supreme Court Deadlocks on Major Religious Freedom Case”
Across the country, a new defense is being heard in state and federal courtrooms. From Democratic members of Congress to judges to city council members, officials claim that their official duties include obstructing the official functions of the federal government. It is a type of liberal license that excuses most any crime in the name of combating what Minn. Gov. Tim Walz called the “modern-day Gestapo” of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Continue reading “The Red Line: Democratic Officials Claim a Dangerous License for Illegality”
Below is my column in The Hill on the controversy this month over extrajudicial comments made by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. These are only the latest such comments by justices that became distractions during the discussion of pending cases before the Court.
Here is the column: Continue reading “Courting Controversy: Justices’ Side Commentaries Undermine the Supreme Court”
Today, the United States Supreme Court will hear three consolidated cases in Trump v. CASA on the growing use of national or universal injunctions. This is a matter submitted on the “shadow docket” and the underlying cases concern the controversy over “birthright citizenship.” However, the merits of those claims are not at issue. Instead, the Trump Administration has made a “modest request” for the Court to limit the scope of lower-court injunctions to their immediate districts and parties, challenging the right of such courts to bind an Administration across the nation. Continue reading ““A Modest Request”: The Supreme Court Hears Challenge to National or Universal Injunctions”
The University of Oregon has long faced controversies over the alleged political bias on its campuses, including celebrating the career of a professor who physically attacked pro-life students as a model of activism. It has been criticized for monitoring off-campus speech and unconstitutionally censoring dissenting faculty. Now, Law Professor Ofer Raban is accusing the Law Review and school administrators of discriminating against an Israeli professor who was allegedly rejected for publication because of his association with an Israeli university. Continue reading “Oregon Law Professor Accuses Oregon Law Review of Anti-Israeli Discrimination”
Many of us have been waiting for the arguments on May 15th before the Supreme Court in the birthright citizenship case to see if the justices will put long-needed limits on district courts issuing national injunctions. Critics object that Democratic groups are going to blue states in open forum-shopping to secure such injunctions from favorable judges — a record number of injunctions for an Administration that only just passed its 100th day mark. Those complaints are likely to only increase after the new order by District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco. It is arguably the most expansive yet in its scope and assertion of judicial power. Continue reading “Federal Judge in San Francisco Halts All Large-Scale Firings by the Trump Administration”
We previously discussed the legislation passed by Washington State democrats that requires priests to violate the sanctity of the confessional to report child abuse. I described the law as “blatantly unconstitutional” in eviscerating the right to the free exercise of religion. The state is moving to create an effective system of sacramental snitches and the Catholic Church is declaring “enough.” It has announced that any priest who complies with the law will be promptly excommunicated. Continue reading “Sacramental Snitches: Church to Excommunicate any Priests Complying with Washington State Law”
For some on the far left, “The Rachel Maddow Show” is a godsend. Otherwise, you would have to go to the subway to compete against others raving about microchips and oligarchies. Just take Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), who went on the show on Friday to explain that Trump officials can now be arrested for “interfering with a legal proceeding” or “kidnapping.” It now stands as second only to Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe’s claim on MSNBC that President Donald Trump could be charged (“without any doubt, beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond any doubt”) with the attempted murder of former Vice President Michael Pence. Continue reading “Raskin: Trump Officials Can Be Arrested for “Kidnapping” Undocumented Persons”
Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on a major parental rights case in Mahmoud v. Taylor, a challenge to Montgomery County (Md.) requiring their children to participate in instruction that includes LGBTQ+ themes. It is a case that could produce sweeping changes across the county as parents object to the use of public schools to advance social and political agendas. These books are being required for children 3-10 years old. The parents have the stronger argument in my view. A ruling in their favor could prove one of the most important victories for parental rights in decades.
Continue reading “Supreme Court Hears Major Parental Rights Case Over LGBT Readings”
I am happy to announce that I will be speaking today at Colgate University in New York on my book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage, at 4:30. The public can register to attend in person or by Zoom here. Continue reading “Turley to Speak on Free Speech at Colgate University”
The intense struggle between the Trump Administration and federal judges continued this week with another court ordering a halt to a nationwide program. In Massachusetts, District Judge Indira Talwani is preventing President Donald Trump from canceling a Biden program granting parole and the right to work to immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (CHNV). Judge Talwani’s order would require individual hearings for the half of a million individuals allowed into the country under this program by President Joe Biden.
The media lit up yesterday with the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, an accused MS-13 member mistakingly sent to El Salvador. I have previously said that the Administration should have brought back Garcia immediately and pushed for deportation under existing laws. Yet, in the order, the Court ordered the government to “facilitate” the return without stating what that means. Continue reading “A Writ of “Facilitation”? Court Issues Curious Order in the Garcia Case” 
Parental rights are emerging as one of the major civil liberties movements of this generation — and one of the greatest conflicts between the right and the left in this country. For example, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled schools can hide a change of gender in young children from their parents. Now, Colorado is poised to pass a law that would threaten the custody rights of parents who “deadname” or “misgender” their own children. If a parent does not adopt a child’s new pronouns or name, they could be found to have exercised “coercive control” and lose custody in divorce proceedings in favor of a more enlightened parent. Continue reading ““Coercive Control”: Parents Could Lose Custody Under Proposed Colorado Law for “Misgendering””
In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court delivered a victory to the Trump Administration on the deportations under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act of suspected gang members of Tren de Aragua. The Court ruled that U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s March 15 order temporarily blocking deportation was invalid and that he should never have proceeded in the case. Rather, as some of us previously argued, the Court ruled that this is a habeas case that should be heard in Texas. Chief Justice Roberts joined Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh to support the Administration.