A Supreme Court ruling on Friday limits the scope of obstruction charges against Jan. 6, 2021 rioters, which is the same charge former President Trump faces in his 2020 election interference case.
Read More
The Supreme Court on Friday overturned a landmark decision that gave federal agencies broad regulatory power.
Read More
The Department of Justice (DOJ) moved Monday to shut down a lawsuit that exposed the Biden administration’s collusion with a transgender medical organization to develop the very standards it is now using to defend child sex changes at the Supreme Court.
After the Supreme Court agreed to take up the Biden administration’s challenge to Tennessee’s ban on child sex changes, the DOJ asked a lower court to put another case challenging a similar Alabama ban on hold pending the high court’s decision. While the DOJ requested a halt on the Alabama case to “avoid the prospect of re-litigation of the claims” after the Supreme Court issues its ruling, the defendants argued the government likely has another motive: shielding information about the administration’s involvement in developing the standards it heavily relies on from the Supreme Court.
Read More
The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked opioid maker Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy settlement which would have provided immunity to the Sackler family from facing lawsuits over their role in the opioid crisis.
Read More
The Supreme Court inadvertently posted a copy of a ruling on its website Wednesday in the Biden administration’s challenge to Idaho’s abortion ban, a court spokesperson confirmed.
Read More
The House subcommittee chairman investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol riot’s intelligence and security failures made an extraordinary intervention Wednesday at the Supreme Court, telling the justices he believes an earlier Democrat-led investigation into the tragedy was “factually and procedurally invalid” and therefore could not lawfully hold ex-Trump adviser Stephen Bannon in contempt.
Read More
The Supreme Court issued a ruling Wednesday siding with the Biden administration in a landmark case that challenged the federal government’s ability to pressure social media companies to censor speech.
Read More
After almost a month following former President Donald Trump’s conviction by a New York City jury on May 30, Missouri Republican Attorney General Andrew Bailey announced on June 20 that his state is suing New York for its “direct attack on our democratic process through unconstitutional lawfare against President Trump”.
That’s good — better late than never — as Bailey stands as the first Republican Attorney General to actually announce such a lawsuit, with not much time before Trump’s scheduled sentencing on July 11, which could imprison to presumptive Republican presidential nominee.
Read More
The Supreme Court rejected Thursday a challenge to a 2017 tax law passed by Congress.
The case, Moore v. United States, considers whether the 16th Amendment permits taxing unrealized gains. Kathleen and Charles Moore sued for a refund in 2019 after they were hit with a $14,729 tax bill for their investment in an overseas company, though they never received any payment in earnings from the company.
Read More
The U.S. Supreme Court sided with Starbucks on Thursday in the company’s challenge to a judicial order that would have required them to rehire seven Memphis employees that were fired while they participated in union efforts.
The “Memphis Seven” publicly released a letter addressed to the Starbucks CEO and agreed to sit down in a store with a TV news crew to discuss the union efforts.
Read More
After several decades of conservative control of the Supreme Court and a string of rulings against their legislative and social priorities, Democrats and left-leaning media appear to be mounting an all-out assault against the judicial branch, casting doubt on its legitimacy and impartiality, while working to undercut the reputations and credibility of its more conservative justices.
Ostensibly conservative since the appointment of Chief Justice William Rehnquist in 1986, the court has generally not attracted comparable partisan scrutiny to the extent that it has under the Biden administration. The Roberts court, however, currently boasts three justices appointed by former President Donald Trump, who have solidified the court’s conservative character and handed conservatives decades-sought wins on abortion, gun rights, and affirmative action.
Read More
The Supreme Court on Friday struck down a federal rule put in place during former President Donald Trump’s administration that prohibited bump stocks for guns, handing a major victory to Second Amendment advocates.
In a 6-3, ruling, the court ruled the devices added to semiautomatic weapons to make them fire faster does not convert weapons into prohibited machine guns.
Read More
The Supreme Court sided unanimously Thursday against several doctors and pro-life medical associations who brought a challenge to the abortion pill.
In FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, the Supreme Court held that the doctors do not have standing to challenge the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) decision to roll back safety regulations for the abortion pill. While recognizing the plaintiffs have “sincere legal, moral, ideological, and policy objections to elective abortion and to FDA’s relaxed regulation of mifepristone,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the majority rulings that those kind of objections are not enough to show the doctors would be injured by the FDA’s actions, noting the federal courts are “the wrong forum” for addressing their concerns.
Read More
Though Hunter Biden was found guilty Tuesday on federal gun charges – on crimes dating back to 2018 – the first son’s legal troubles are far from over, and House Republicans leading impeachment inquiry into his father, President Joe Biden, say this should be only the beginning of the accountability.
Hunter Biden’s attorney Abbe Lowell said in a statement following the conviction that his client’s legal team “will continue to vigorously pursue all the legal challenges available to Hunter.”
Read More
The controversial business practice known as “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) could soon see its legal challenges take it all the way to the Supreme Court.
According to Axios, the case that could spark Supreme Court action was filed by the same group that successfully saw the practice of affirmative action overturned by the court last year. The current case saw an appeals court ultimately rule that a venture capital firm had to shut down its grant program that was exclusively for black women.
Read More
This summer the Supreme Court will rule on a case involving what a district court called perhaps “the most massive attack against free speech” ever inflicted on the American people. In Murthy v. Missouri, plaintiffs ranging from the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana to epidemiologists from Harvard and Stanford allege that the federal government violated the First Amendment by working with outside groups and social media platforms to surveil, flag, and quash dissenting speech – characterizing it as mis-, dis- and mal-information – on issues ranging from COVID-19 to election integrity.
The case has helped shine a light on a sprawling network of government agencies and connected NGOs that critics describe as a censorship industrial complex. That the U.S. government might aggressively clamp down on protected speech, and, certainly at the scale of millions of social media posts, may constitute a recent development. Reporting by RCI and other outlets – including Racket News’ new “Censorship Files” series, and continuing installments of the “Twitter Files” series to which it, Public, and others have contributed – and congressional probes continue to reveal the substantial breadth and depth of contemporary efforts to quell speech that authorities deem dangerous. But the roots of what some have dubbed the censorship industrial complex stretch back decades, born of an alliance between government, business, and academia that Democrat Sen. William Fulbright termed the “military-industrial-academic-complex” – building on President Eisenhower’s formulation – in a 1967 speech.
Read More
The Supreme Court unanimously held Thursday that the National Rifle Association (NRA) “plausibly alleged” that a New York official violated its First Amendment rights, finding that government officials cannot “use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.”
The justices allowed the NRA to pursue its First Amendment claim against former superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) Maria Vullo, vacating a lower court ruling that found the NRA failed to show Vullo “crossed the line between attempts to convince and attempts to coerce.” They held that the gun rights group has a plausible case that Vullo “violated the First Amendment by coercing regulated entities to terminate their business relationships with the NRA in order to punish or suppress gun-promotion advocacy.”
Read More
The Biden administration is currently waging a legal campaign against Republican-led states, arguing their laws that effectively restrict illegal immigration are unconstitutional.
The Department of Justice has so far filed lawsuits against three different states for enacting laws that largely empower police to enforce immigration rules. However, these state leaders, in the backdrop of an unprecedented border crisis, say they have no choice but to take up the issue themselves because the Biden administration won’t — and other Republican states may soon follow suit.
Read More
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 Thursday that a lower court “clearly erred” when it held that South Carolina racially gerrymandered its congressional district map.
The majority held that the “circumstantial evidence falls far short of showing that race, not partisan preferences, drove the districting process” behind the creation of the map.
Read More
A coalition of medical professionals revealed the methods by which medical schools across the country are circumventing the Supreme Court’s ruling outlawing the practice of affirmative action, and employing such race-based policies anyway.
According to Fox News, the group Do No Harm released new research this week revealing that “many in the healthcare establishment nevertheless remain ideologically committed to the principle of racial favoritism and reject the virtue of race blindness.” This comes despite the Supreme Court’s landmark decision last year in the case Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which determined that affirmative action, the practice of admitting students or hiring staff based solely on their race, was unconstitutional.
Read More
The Supreme Court rejected a challenge on Thursday that could have paved the way for a consumer protection regulator to be dismantled.
Read More
At one time, unfavorable outcomes in the four court cases against former President Donald Trump seemed likely to be politically damaging for the three-time campaigner, but as the cases have faced scrutiny and delays, public opinion has recently shifted.
Yesterday, the Georgia Appeals Court agreed to hear an appeal in the state election case brought by controversial Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. Earlier this week, a Florida judge indefinitely suspended the federal trial in the classified documents case.
Read More
Democratic strategist James Carville on Sunday mocked young voters who are struggling with whether they will vote for the Democratic Party.
Read More
To convince the Supreme Court that the Biden administration could use federal Medicare funding to force hospitals to perform abortions in violation of Idaho law, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar conceived and gave birth to some unusual arguments Wednesday.
She reached for a 129-year-old precedent that crippled the labor movement for decades, neutered legal obligations to the “unborn child” in the federal law that allegedly requires abortions in certain situations, and didn’t deny a Republican administration could use her rationale to functionally ban abortion and even transgender care nationwide.
Read More
The Supreme Court will hear history-making arguments on Thursday in the case of Donald J. Trump v United States. For the first time, the highest court in the land will publicly debate the untested and unsettled question as to whether a former president is immune from criminal prosecution for his conduct in office. And despite claims by Democrats, the news media, and self-proclaimed “legal experts” to the contrary, the matter is far from clear-cut.
The case arises from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s four-count indictment against Trump related to the events of January 6 and alleged attempts to “overturn” the 2020 election. Smith’s flimsy indictment—two of four counts are currently under review by SCOTUS and the other two fall under similarly vague “conspiracy” laws—-and an unprecedented ruling issued last year by U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan will be put to the test by the justices.
Read More
In July 2023, Joshua Youngerman was arrested in California on five misdemeanors for his participation in the events of January 6. According to charging documents, Youngerman entered the Capitol at 2:37 p.m. — 20 minutes after the House went into recess amid the escalating chaos — through an open door as Capitol…
Read More
The Supreme Court declined Monday to stop a police officer’s lawsuit against a Black Lives Matter activist who led the 2016 protest where he was injured by another individual.
Read More
Recently appointed 4th Circuit Judge Nicole Berner is legally married to the pro-abortion lawyer who represented Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who accused Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her.
The Washington Post describes Berner as “the first openly gay judge and the first labor lawyer on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit,” which covers Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Berner, who is also pro-abortion, formerly served as a staff attorney for Planned Parenthood, where she focused on “protecting and expanding access” to chemical abortion drugs.
Read More
Judges are ordering Jan. 6 defendants who fought against their sentences to be released early pending an appeal as the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments next week about the legitimacy of a key charge that many of them were indicted.
The attorneys of three Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot defendants are set to argue before the Supreme Court that the crime of obstructing or impeding an official proceeding is only limited to destroying evidence in governmental probes, The Washington Post reported Tuesday.
Read More
A circuit appeals court halted Texas’ border enforcement laws on Tuesday the same day they were allowed to proceed by the Supreme Court.
Read More
A preliminary Supreme Court ruling that allowed Texas to begin enforcing a state law empowering local police to arrest and deport illegal aliens if the federal government doesn’t should inspire other states to follow suit, prominent conservatives tell Just the News.
Read More
Federal officials privately scold reporters and attempt to shape or even stop their coverage on a regular basis, without getting sued for First Amendment violations.
How close is that to White House aides privately and repeatedly badgering their counterparts at social media companies and President Biden publicly accusing Facebook of “killing people,” for insufficient censorship of disfavored narratives on COVID-19?
Read More
The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an emergency request from former Trump advisor Peter Navarro to remain out of prison while he appeals his conviction for contempt of Congress.
Read More
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled Friday that there are circumstances when government officials can permissibly block a constituent from their social media pages, provided they are not claiming to speak on the state’s behalf.
The case, Lindke v. Freed, stemmed from Port Huron, Michigan, resident Kevin Lindke’s First Amendment lawsuit against city manager James Freed, who blocked Lindke from his Facebook page over comments criticizing the city’s response to COVID-19. While officials may look like they are “always on the clock,” not every encounter is “part of the job,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the opinion of the court.
Read More
Despite their best efforts, have Democrats begun an inexorable elevation of former President Donald Trump? For the better part of a decade, Democrats and the Left have thrown everything they could think of against the man they live to loathe. In the process, they have created a quasi-caricature that appears to be decreasingly believable to an increasing proportion of Americans. The question is whether these attacks have come full circle, accomplishing what Democrats most sought to avoid. Have they vilified Trump to victimhood and prosecuted him back into the presidency?
Since Trump burst on the political scene in 2016, Democrats and the Left have busted their guts laughing at him. When that didn’t work and he won, they burst all boundaries going after him. Their efforts have ranged from slights to a Russian dossier to two impeachments. Even after Trump left office, they refused to stop. Unquestionably, these efforts have had an effect — and equally unquestionably, Trump has given ample fodder to use against him: the result being that with Trump poised to win an unprecedented third successive major party presidential nomination (a feat last accomplished by Franklin D. Roosevelt 84 years ago), he has become a highly polarizing figure.
Read More
The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 Monday that former President Donald Trump cannot be removed from Colorado’s 2024 ballot. The Colorado Supreme Court found Trump ineligible for the state’s ballot in December, ruling he was disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Read More
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that former President Donald Trump can remain on the 2024 presidential ballot in a decision that comes one day before the Colorado Republican primary after the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the top Republican contender is ineligible.
Read More
by Carl M. Cannon For the American media, 2024 has been a fiasco. And it’s still only February. Nine days into the new year, highly respected Los Angeles Times editor Kevin Merida resigned rather than tolerate another round of layoffs and the meddlesome ways of a billionaire publisher and his…
Read More
Federal public health officials created strange bedfellows among animal-welfare advocates, scientists and vaccine skeptics for allegedly cutting corners in viral and COVID-19 vaccine research and oversight, possibly engineering a pathogen, then a cure that’s worse for some.
The Food and Drug Administration may be creating another odd couple in a case at the Supreme Court: environmental and pro-life activists.
Read More
The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to hear arguments over former President Donald Trump’s immunity claims in special counsel Jack Smith’s D.C. election case.
Read More
In yet another move circumventing the Supreme Court on the question of student loan debt, Joe Biden announced the cancellation of approximately $1.2 billion in student loan debt for about 153,000 borrowers.
As reported by ABC News, the Biden Administration made the cancellation official on Wednesday, including a draft email that will be sent to all of the borrowers in question. The email will read, in part: “Congratulations — all or a portion of your federal student loans will be forgiven because you qualify for early loan forgiveness under my Administration’s SAVE Plan.”
Read More
Supreme Court justices on Thursday appeared skeptical during oral arguments of Colorado plaintiffs’ assertions that former President Donald Trump should be kept off of the state’s ballot for president.
The justices focused on the consequences of allowing Colorado to remove former President Donald Trump during oral arguments on Thursday, pressing the Colorado plaintiffs’ attorney on the issues that could occur across the country.
Read More
Was Special Counsel Jack Smith illegally appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland and is his prosecution of former Pres. Donald Trump unlawful? That is the intriguing issue raised in an amicus brief filed in the Supreme Court by Schaerr Jaffe, LLP, on behalf of former Attorney General Ed Meese and two law professors, Steven Calabresi and Gary Lawson, in the case of U.S. v. Trump.
We won’t get an immediate answer to this question because on the Friday before Christmas, the Supreme Court issued a one-line order refusing to take up Smith’s request that the court review Trump’s claim of presidential immunity, which was denied by the trial court, in the federal prosecution being pursued by Smith in the District of Columbia. The special counsel had petitioned the court to take the case on an expedited basis, urging the justices to bypass review by the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Read More
U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan on Friday officially suspended former President Donald Trump’s March 4 trial in special counsel Jack Smith’s election case, The Hill reported.
Read More
The U.S. Supreme Court is considering a federal ban on bump stocks later in February, the latest opportunity for the high court to rule on gun violence and 2nd Amendment rights.
The case in question, Garland v. Cargill, came after the Trump administration banned bump stocks, attachments added to semiautomatic weapons to make them fire more quickly, classifying them as “machine guns,” which are banned by federal law.
Read More
Former President Donald Trump on Thursday expressed support for Texas GOP Gov. Greg Abbott’s efforts to secure the southern border amid perceived federal apathy toward the unprecedented surge in illegal border crossings.
Read More
The Supreme Court rejected former Hunter Biden business partner Devon Archer’s appeal of his criminal conviction in connection to a scheme to defraud a Native American tribe.
Archer was convicted in 2018 and sentenced to just over a year in prison in 2022 for defrauding a Native American tribe of $60 million in bonds. The Supreme Court refused to hear Archer’s appeal challenging his sentence on Monday.
Read More
Applicants who self-identified as a member of a race the Academy wished to privilege—at the time I was on the Admissions Board it was African American, Hispanic, and Native American—were briefed separately to the committee not by a white member but by a minority Navy lieutenant. Briefings (a minute and forty seconds per applicant, no more) ran through a number of factors quite quickly and offered a recommendation that we had been told was appropriate: “qualified” for USNA if grades A/B for white applicants (but not minorities, who needed only C grades), 600 score in each part of the SAT for white applicants (but about 550 for minorities who come to USNA without remediation), and Whole Person Multiple (points given for grades/tests, school leadership positions, and sports) of at least 55,000 for whites, no bottom for minorities.
Read More
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court refused to intervene in a case that could have potentially set a nationwide precedent on the question of transgender bathroom policies in school districts.
As ABC News reports, the case in question stems from an Indiana public school district, the Metropolitan School District of Martinsville, which is located about 30 miles southwest of Indianapolis. Most recently, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a previous order determining that biological females can use the male restroom, and vice-versa. A similar ruling was made by the federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, while the appeals court in Atlanta ruled against such policies.
Read More
A new Supreme Court filing by the Department of Justice (DOJ) raises new questions that could help exonerate the Texas Military Department after the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) English) accuse the state agency of allowing the deaths of three migrants who drowned in Shelby Park last week.
Both the White House and Biden’s Department of Homeland Security blamed state officials after three migrants, including two children, drowned in the Shelby Park area.
Read More