Yesterday, the Supreme Court handed down three major cases with unanimous decisions. One, Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, raises additional questions over diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs that have been widely used in higher education and businesses. There is no reason to believe that DEI measures are DOA, but the decision is likely to accelerate challenges based on reverse discrimination after the Court rejected the imposition of an added burden for members of any “majority group” including straight, white males. Continue reading “Is DEI DOA? Supreme Court Unanimously Rejects Added Burden for Whites in Discrimination Lawsuits”
Category: Supreme Court
Dan Bongino, the FBI’s deputy director, has announced that the bureau is reexamining the long-controversial investigations into the leaking of the Dobbs decision, the pipe bombs left on Jan. 6th and the cocaine found at the White House. All three investigations led to speculation over political influences on the unresolved outcome. I am aware of no credible evidence of such influence, but there is reason to hope that this reopening of the investigation into the Dobbs leak could bring accountability for the most egregious violation of ethics in the modern Court’s history.
Continue reading “Unfinished Business: FBI Moves to Reopen Dobbs Leak Investigation”
This week, The New York Times reported that the town of Toms River, New Jersey, is moving to condemn the Christ Episcopal Church through eminent domain to build pickleball courts and a park. Church members claim that the move was retaliation for a planned homeless shelter at the site. The case could raise one of the most infamous cases of the modern Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London (2005). While some have suggested the possibility of a Kelo 2.0, this may not be the ideal case for such a challenge to the Supreme Court.
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”
Five years ago, I wrote about a federal judge who, in my view, had discarded any resemblance of judicial restraint and judgment in a public screed against Republicans, Donald Trump, and the Supreme Court. The Wisconsin judge represented the final death of irony: a jurist who failed to see the conflict in lashing out at what he called judicial bias in a political diatribe that would have made MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell blush.
His name is Lynn Adelman. Continue reading “A Judge of Her Peers? Judge Dugan Assigned a Judge Previously Rebuked for Political Comments”
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”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor has previously been criticized for making public comments that some viewed as overly political or partisan, including telling law students to organize in favor of abortion rights. This week, the Justice has triggered another controversy in calling for lawyers to “fight this fight,” presumably against the Trump Administration. Continue reading ““An Act of Solidarity”: Sotomayor Calls for Lawyers to “Fight this Fight” in Controversial Speech”
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”
With all of the coverage yesterday of the heated arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor, one order of the Court was likely overlooked. It appears that elderly Americans will not be deported as Alien Elderly Americans. At the request of the A.A.R.P., the Court agreed to change the name of A.A.R.P. v. Trump to W.M.M. v. Trump. Continue reading “It Appears that Mass Deportations of the Elderly Are Not Being Considered”
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”
It has been a busy 24 hours in the courts. Early this morning, the Supreme Court blocked (for now) the deportations of any Venezuelans held in northern Texas under the Alien Enemies Act, a law only used three times before in our history. At the same time, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the lower court’s order in the case of Abrego Garcia.
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” 
Leila Fadel and National Public Radio recently interviewed me on free speech. While the program ominously warned that “what you’re about to hear is hate speech” in playing extreme voices on the right, it did interview me and former Columbia University president Lee Bollinger from the free speech community. I wanted to address a statement made about the program that is not accurate but has been repeated like a mantra by many seeking to dismiss the censorship system under the Biden Administration. The claim is that the Supreme Court rejected the claim of coordination between the government and social media companies. That is entirely untrue, but you do not have to take my word for it. The Supreme Court expressly stated that it was not doing so last year. Continue reading “NPR Repeats False Claim That the Court Rejected Claims of Government Involvement in Censorship Efforts”
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.
In a decision that could well find itself before the Supreme Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld California’s ban on “large capacity” magazines. In a rare move, Judge Lawrence Van Dyke offered a video dissent to the majority opinion. Continue reading “Ninth Circuit Upholds California’s Ban on “Large Capacity” Magazines”