There are certain dates that have become a regular feature in American life. In February, the Sandhill Cranes return to the Platte River in Tennessee. In March, the swallows return to San Juan Capistrano…and in October, the protesters have returned to Hupper Island, the summer vacation home of Chief Justice Roberts. Continue reading ““Kayak-tivists” Target the Home of Chief Justice Roberts in Maine in the Latest Protests”
Category: Courts
Yesterday, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from one of the term’s most important cases: Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County. As I have previously discussed, the case involving the liability of energy companies for nuisance actions tied to climate change could have sweeping implications for the country. Justice Alito should be commended for avoiding even the appearance of a personal interest or a conflict in the case. However, the controversy should prompt the Court to explore a longstanding problem for justices in holding financial interests that can conflict with their duties. The solution is simple: justices need to use blind trusts. Continue reading “Justice (and Justices’ Investments) Should Be Blind: The Alito Controversy Raises Persistent Problem on the Court”
Hawaii has long been open about its hostility to Second Amendment rights, joining New York, Illinois, and other states that have proven to be fonts of litigation before the courts. Ironically, these states have proven a bonanza for gun rights advocates in triggering a series of massive losses before the Supreme Court and the expansion of protections under the Second Amendment. On the heels of a major loss before the Court in Wolford v. Lopez over its “Vampire Law,” the state (and the Ninth Circuit) are back again with a new controversy over the permissible limitations or regulations that can be placed on gun ownership. To paraphrase Jerry Maguire, it also seems that gun control advocates always have the Ninth Circuit at “Mahalo.” Continue reading “You Had Me at Mahalo: Ninth Circuit Upholds Latest Gun Restrictions Out of Hawaii”
The Trump Administration is rushing to prepare for a fight that few knew was coming after President Donald Trump banned Politico, CNN, and MS NOW from the White House for spreading “fake news.” I understand the President had been planning this step for over a year, but he announced it with little notice to his staff. What will follow could be one of the most consequential fights over press rights in decades… and the odds are against the President. Continue reading “Fake News or Viewpoint Discrimination: Can the President Ban Disfavored Media?”
I was surprised to hear on a flight this week that Lindsay Clancy’s defense counsel, Kevin Reddington, had unleashed a torrent of criticism of my commentary on the trial. In the interview with Fox News reporter Bryan Llenas, Reddington even suggested that we meet and debate these issues. I wanted to briefly respond to Reddington’s criticisms. Continue reading “The Secret to “Sleeping Well”: A Response to Kevin Reddington”

Some of us have been closely following challenges to A1765, New Jersey’s gun industry liability law. In my view, the law is facially invalid and preempted under federal law, and we may now find out after the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit greenlit a challenge from the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) yesterday. The court found that the NSSF has standing to bring the lawsuit, which could reach the United States Supreme Court. Continue reading “Lock and [Re-]Loaded: Third Circuit Greenlights Major Challenge to New Jersey Gun Liability Law”
Below is my column on the attack unleashed by defense counsel Kevin Reddington on the holdout juror in the Lindsay Clancy case. As I said immediately during the coverage, I considered the attack utterly reprehensible and worthy of intervention by Judge William Sullivan. Reddington went out of his way to fuel the anger against this one juror, a dangerous and unprofessional play to the mob.
Here is the column: Continue reading “The Clancy Trial: When “Twelve Angry Men” Becomes One Angry Man”

Congressional Democrats blocked an effort to introduce a constitutional amendment to bar the Court’s expansion, with many members reiterating their demand to pack the Court to create an instant liberal majority. The Democrats insisted the Court is broken and no longer legitimate because of partisan rulings they want reversed by a packed Court. Ironically, the vote came with the release of the latest Harvard-Harris polling showing that Congress itself is still the least respected institution, while the Supreme Court holds higher approval than either the White House or Congress. Continue reading “Supreme Irony: Congressional Democrats Seek to Reform Institution That is More Popular Than They Are”
On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) added his voice to expand the Supreme Court to a “baker’s dozen,” or thirteen members to allow Democrats to add justices who agree with him and Democratic members on how the law must be interpreted. In the meantime, as discussed earlier, court packing is being pushed as the new litmus test for any Democratic candidates. Clyburn’s “baker’s dozen” is a telling description of an effort to bake in partisan views on a Court expanded to create an instant liberal majority. In defending this hostile takeover of the Court, Clyburn bizarrely insisted that the failure to do so might lead to a return to antebellum conditions when blacks were being given fewer rights than whites. Continue reading “Clyburn Calls for Packing the Court with “Baker’s Dozen” to Flip Cases”
Below is my column in The Hill on the latest controversy from the chambers of Judge Indira Talwani. While the court could be upheld in halting the executive order on mail-in balloting in this case, Talwani is one of a number of jurists who have been habitual blockers of executive reforms and policies. Talwani has been criticized in the past as something of a one-stop option for forum-shoppers. Her record reaffirms the rationale for justices in using the emergency docket, or so-called “shadow docket,” to deter gaming the system.
Here is the column: Continue reading “The Long Shadow of Judge Indira Talwani”
University of Pennsylvania Professor Michael Mann is the Vice Provost for Climate Science, Policy, and Action and has pushed candidates to commit to major environmental reforms. Notably, he seemed to pivot in an interview with Peter Dominick on a podcast last week, calling for all Democratic candidates to face a litmus test on committing to pack the Supreme Court: promise to pack or get the sack. It is only the latest example of how the hostile takeover of the Court is now the priority for many Democrats in removing a barrier to a radical agenda.
This week, the Fourth Circuit issued a major ruling striking down South Carolina’s limits on absentee ballots. The relatively novel basis of this opinion (by Judges Roger Gregory, Judge Pamela Harris, and Judge Julius Richardson) was that it violated the 26th Amendment as discrimination on the basis of age for voters. The opinion conflicts with rulings in other circuits and, in my view, is challengeable.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has struggled to pander to the mob to secure power in the midterm elections, including brandishing a baseball bat on social media to show his radical bona fides. With Democratic Socialists chanting “you’re next” when seeing Jeffries, he continues to struggle to stay in front of the mob. This week, he doubled down on his pledge to throw the Supreme Court to the mob if they make him the next Speaker of the House of Representatives. Continue reading “Rage Politics: Hakeem Jeffries Will Take a Baseball Bat to the Supreme Court”

