SCOTUS: Judges Can’t block Trump Nationwide
SCOTUS: Judges Can’t block Trump Nationwide
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tA6jkis2s6I
Tag: judiciary
A Broad Ruling Against Trump’s Immigration Policies Illustrates Alternatives to Universal Injunctions
https://reason.com/2025/07/03/a-broad-ruling-against-trumps-immigration-policies-illustrates-alternatives-to-universal-injunctions/
Supreme Court Rules, Again, That Different Standards for Discrimination Plaintiffs Are Unconstitutional
“the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of a teenage girl and her parents who are attempting to sue the girl’s school district for alleged disability discrimination. The decision, which did not rule on the merits of the case, is similar to another recent unanimous ruling finding that courts cannot require different discrimination cases to meet different standards of proof to receive a favorable judgment.”
…
“two lower courts ruled against the family. The 8th Circuit ruled that simply failing to provide A. J. T. a reasonable accommodation wasn’t enough to prove illegal discrimination. Rather, because the family was suing a school, they would be subject to a higher standard than plaintiffs suing other institutions. The family was told they had to prove that the school’s behavior rose to the level of “bad faith” or “gross misjudgment.”
The Supreme Court disagreed. In the Court’s opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that disability discrimination “claims based on educational services should be subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts,” adding that “Nothing in the text of Title II of the ADA or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act suggests that such claims should be subject to a distinct, more demanding analysis.”
In a concurring opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor reiterated how nonsensical the 8th Circuit’s higher standard for educational disability discrimination claims was, noting that some of the most obvious forms of disability discrimination do not involve bad faith or misjudgment against the disabled.”
https://reason.com/2025/06/13/supreme-court-rules-again-that-different-standards-for-discrimination-plaintiffs-are-unconstitutional/
Federal Courts Shrug at Potentially Lethal Wrong-Door Raids
Federal Courts Shrug at Potentially Lethal Wrong-Door Raids
https://reason.com/2025/06/18/federal-courts-shrug-at-potentially-lethal-wrong-door-raids/
An Iran-Israel Cease-Fire, Toxic Homes in LA, Florida Builds ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ | The Headlines
Conservative Supreme Court allows Trump to deport immigrants to third countries without due process.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA-UzsY0JC4
What J.D. Vance Gets Wrong About Judicial Deference to Executive Power
“Let’s start with the role of the courts. The idea that the judicial branch owes special deference to the elected branches of government was thoroughly rejected by the framers and ratifiers of the Constitution. “As to the constitutionality of laws,” Luther Martin told the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on July 21, 1787, “that point will come before the judges in their proper official character. In this character they will have a negative on the laws.” Federal judges, Martin explained, “could declare an unconstitutional law void,” thereby overruling the actions of the elected branches. None of the delegates disagreed with that.
“This Constitution defines the extent of the powers of the general government,” Oliver Ellsworth told the Connecticut Ratification Convention on January 7, 1788. “If the general legislature should at any time overleap their limits, the judicial department is a constitutional check. If the United States go beyond their powers, if they make a law which the Constitution does not authorize, it is void; and the judicial power, the national judges, who, to secure their impartiality, are to be made independent, will declare it to be void.”
James Madison, often called the “father of the Constitution,” made the same point in his June 8, 1789, speech to Congress introducing the Bill of Rights. The proper role of the courts, Madison said, was to act as “an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive.””
https://reason.com/2025/05/30/what-j-d-vance-gets-wrong-about-judicial-deference-to-executive-power/
The Next Conservative Civil War Is Coming
“the more tangible potential rupture with at least parts of the conservative legal movement is coming over Trump’s decision to nominate Emil Bove — formerly Trump’s criminal defense lawyer, currently Trump’s enforcer at the Justice Department — to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Prominent members of the conservative legal movement have been publicly speaking out against Bove’s nomination, arguing that he would be more loyal to Trump than the rule of law. That in turn has sparked a backlash against Bove’s critics from Trump allies eager to install a new set of judges who may be less tied to the old guard on the right.”
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/06/16/emil-bove-nomination-conservative-legal-civil-war-00405837
Overruling Trump’s Tariffs Should Be an Easy Decision for SCOTUS
“Trump unilaterally imposed tariffs on much of the world. Yet the president has no such authority under Article II of the Constitution, which enumerates the limited powers of the executive branch. Instead, the authority “to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,” as well as the authority “to regulate Commerce with Foreign nations,” resides exclusively in Article I, which is where the limited powers of the legislative branch are detailed.
So, Trump’s trade war violates the constitutional separation of powers because Trump has unlawfully exercised power that the Constitution placed in the hands of Congress, not in the hands of the president.”
…
“As a pretext for his trade war, Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Yet “the statute is silent on tariffs, and for good reason. It was never meant, and has never been understood, to authorize the President to impose them.” That observation comes from a superb friend of the court brief filed by a cross-ideological group of legal scholars and former government officials in support of the legal challenge against Trump’s tariffs. Their brief thoroughly explains why Trump’s use of the IEEPA to fundamentally remake the American economy cannot be reconciled with any law passed by Congress. In short, Trump’s tariffs flunk the test imposed by the major questions doctrine.”
https://reason.com/2025/06/05/overruling-trumps-tariffs-should-be-an-easy-decision-for-scotus/
A Federal Judge Orders Relief for Alleged Gang Members Deported and Imprisoned Without Due Process
“Under the Fifth Amendment, Boasberg notes, the government’s assertion that it infallibly identifies the guilty “does not suffice.” As the Supreme Court confirmed in Trump v. J.G.G., which addressed a temporary restraining order (TRO) that Boasberg issued during an earlier round of the ACLU’s litigation, “‘it is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law’ in the context of removal proceedings,” meaning “the detainees are entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard ‘appropriate to the nature of the case.'” Specifically, the justices said, “AEA detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.””
https://reason.com/2025/06/05/a-federal-judge-orders-relief-for-alleged-gang-members-deported-and-imprisoned-without-due-process/
Is the Supreme Court Really That Divided? The Facts Say No.
“Unanimous rulings on discrimination, guns, and religion once again challenge the common media narrative that the Court is hopelessly polarized.”
https://reason.com/2025/06/05/is-the-supreme-court-really-that-divided-the-facts-say-no/