Category: Supreme Court
In Florida, U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle has ruled that the federal law prohibiting people from possessing firearms inside post offices is unconstitutional. The ruling is based on the 2022 Supreme Court ruling New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen recognized a person’s right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense. Continue reading “Packing Services: Federal Judge Rules Ban on Guns in Post Offices is Unconstitutional”
As Democrats ramp up their efforts for the 2024 election, some are dangling an old enticement from 2020: if we win, we can pack the Court. In the last election, President Joe Biden refused to say if he favored packing the Court. Now the chatter has again started in the same quarters that a Democrat retaking the White House would allow the packing of the Court with an immediate liberal majority to force through sweeping court mandates. Continue reading “Unpacking by Packing the Court? The Left has a New Orwellian Mantra”
The majority of Americans oppose the decisions in Colorado and Maine to disqualify former President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot. Other polls put the balance slightly in favor, but all polls show a deeply divided country on this effort. The Maine decision will now be reviewed by the Maine state courts, but the Colorado decision is scheduled for oral argument in a matter of weeks. A reversal of the Colorado decision is now supported by 27 states, which filed with the Supreme Court to oppose the underlying theory under the Fourteenth Amendment. It is relatively rare to see states opposing the expansion of their own authority vis-a-vis Congress. The brief reinforces the view of states like Colorado as outliers in the country in embracing this anti-democratic theory.
Below is my column in the New York Post on the expansion of the 14th Amendment theory to attempt to remove Republican candidates for Congress from the ballots. Dozens of Democratic members have already called for the disqualification of up to 126 Republican colleagues under the same sweeping theory. These efforts show how this theory could place this country on a slippery slope to political chaos if not clearly and finally rejected by the Supreme Court.
Here is the column:
Continue reading “Ballot Cleansing: Democrats are Moving to Bar Republicans from Ballots Nationwide”
Below is my column in USA Today on the alliance of civil libertarians and gun rights groups to oppose New York’s attack on free speech rights in the name of gun control.
Here is the column: Continue reading “Gunning for Free Speech: Civil Libertarians and Gun Right Advocates Join to Oppose New York’s Attack on Free Speech”
Below is my column in The Messenger on the challenge facing the Supreme Court in the coming week over the electoral disqualification of former president Donald Trump in Colorado and Maine. The appeal in Maine has been filed and can now work its way up to the Court. Colorado is expected to file with the Court this week. If the Court does not act before Jan. 4th, Colorado could seek to moot any appeal and avoid review. It would then depend on the Maine litigation to bring the matter back to the Court.
Here is the column: Continue reading ““A Sad Day”: How the Colorado Disqualification Case is Bringing Back Bad Memories for the Supreme Court”
Rep. Jamie Raskin raised eyebrows on Sunday with a CNN interview where he said that there may have to be action taken if Justice Clarence Thomas does not recuse himself from pending appeals over the disqualification of Donald Trump from the Colorado and Maine ballots. Not only is there a weak basis for demanding such recusal, the suggestion of some type of response or retaliation raises ongoing concerns over efforts to influence or intimidate justices. Continue reading ““What Do We Do if He Doesn’t Recuse Himself?” Rep. Raskin Raises Eyebrows with CNN Interview on Justice Thomas”
Below is my column in The Messenger on the Supreme Court’s rejection of the motion by Special Counsel Jack Smith to curtail the appellate review of Donald Trump’s claim of immunity. While denounced by many in the media, it was not just a predictable but principled decision to stick with regular order in the consideration of such appellate issues. For too many legal experts, Trump offers the release of rage and the ability to adopt of the same dismissive, cavalier attitude of others when it comes to legal rights.
Long civil libertarians can experience the momentary freedom from the confines of blind justice and due process. They can just vent and demand abridged appeals for a presumed guilty defendant. They can embrace broad interpretations of criminal provisions and narrow interpretations of constitutional rights. Years of circumscribed restraint can be set aside for a cathartic demand for disqualification and incarceration. The Supreme Court, however, resisted such demands in a decision that declined to create a fast-track to favor the Special Counsel.
Here is the column:
Continue reading “The Supreme Court Holds to Regular Order for the New Year”
Below is my column in The Messenger on the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision disqualifying former President Donald Trump from the 2024 election. There are now over a dozen states considering similar demands from advocates to prevent voters from being able to vote for the current leading candidate for the presidency. In California, Lieutenant Gov. Eleni Kounalakis publicly called upon the Secretary of State to “explore every legal option” to follow the same path as Colorado. It is a temptation that is irresistible for Democratic politicians in a race to the bottom of our rage politics.
Here is the column: Continue reading “Yielding to Temptation: Colorado’s Supreme Court Blocks Democracy to Bar Trump on the 2024 Ballot”
Below is my column in the New York Post on the next step in the effort to disqualify former president Donald Trump in the 2024 election. I believe that the Colorado opinion will be set aside, but it is not finality but clarity that we need from the United States Supreme Court.
Here is the column:
Colorado Judge Sarah Wallace has become the latest jurist to reject the effort to bar former president Donald Trump from the ballot under the novel 14th Amendment theory. I have long been a vocal critic of the theory, which I view as historically and legally unfounded. I also view it as arguably the most dangerous theory to arise in decades. While Wallace reached the right conclusion, she committed, in my view, fundamental errors in her analysis on the free speech elements of the case. Continue reading “Colorado Judge Rejects 14th Amendment Disqualification Effort to Bar Trump from Ballot”
I am pleased to announce that my book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in the Age of Rage, is now available for purchase. The book and is now available on Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and other sites for pre-orders. Indeed, there are discounts for Kindle copies for pre-orders. Simon & Schuster will release the book in June 2024, but it can be purchased now. Continue reading “THE INDISPENSABLE BOOK: THE TURLEY BOOK IS NOW AVAILABLE FOR PRE-ORDER!”
Today I have the honor of speaking to the judges and lawyers in the 2023 Ohio Judicial conference on the Supreme Court in Columbus, Ohio. I will be discussing the last year of cases and controversies for the Court, incluiding recent and upcoming decisions. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once said that “it’s hard not to have a big year at the Supreme Court.” However, this is shaping up as another huge year for the Court. Continue reading “Turley Speaks at 2023 Ohio Judicial Conference”
We previously discussed how Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson included a false claim to support her dissent in the Court’s recent opinion barring racial discrimination in college admissions. Now, the justice is accused of a second false claim derived from the same source: the amicus brief of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). Notably, however, the media is still citing the first error as proof that race-blind admissions will kill Black citizens. Continue reading “Justice Jackson Accused of Second False Claim in Affirmative Action Dissent”