Introducing the Interim Relief Docket Stat Pack – SCOTUSblog

INTERIM DOCKET

Introducing the Interim Relief Docket Stat Pack

By Taraleigh Davis, Jan 28, 2026

Facebook LinkedIn X Email Print

For years, scholars and commentators have tracked the Supreme Court’s merits docket through detailed statistical analyses. SCOTUSblog’s Stat Pack has become an essential resource for understanding how the justices decide cases after full briefing and oral argument. But the court’s “other” docket, the interim relief docket – also known as the emergency or shadow docket – has received far less systematic attention.

Until now.

I’m proud to introduce the first Interim Relief Docket Stat Pack, a statistical portrait of the Supreme Court’s applications for the 2024-25 term (that is, from October 7, 2024, through October 5, 2025).

What’s included

I have been collecting data on applications for relief (beginning with the court’s 2000-01 term) for several years. Based on this data, the current Stat Pack covers 136 applications filed during the 2024-25 term. These break down into three categories: 49 capital cases (requests to stay or vacate executions), 32 refiled applications (cases denied in chambers and referred to the full court), and 55 of what I call substantive applications. Of the 55 substantive applications, six were deferred for oral argument, leaving 49 for statistical analysis. That final category includes challenges to lower court injunctions, often from the administration; administrative enforcement disputes; First Amendment conflicts; and federalism questions.

The Interim Relief Docket Stat Pack tracks how the justices voted on the interim docket and in what coalitions, the timing of such decisions, issue areas, who filed what, and much more – thus providing unprecedented insight into this docket. It also includes a Term Index, which is a complete case-by-case breakdown of these applications, including docket numbers, case names, outcomes, days to decision, and noted dissents.

Some key findings

During the 2024-25 term, the court granted relief in 53% of substantive applications, more than double the 23% grant rate from the previous term. At the same time, the justices publicly disagreed in 76% of substantive cases, far exceeding the pre-2014 average of 13.5%.

Perhaps predictably, the Trump administration dominated much of the docket, filing 27 of 55 substantive applications and obtaining relief in a striking 90% of these. Yet only 9% of the Trump cases were decided unanimously – with justices typically publicly disagreeing along ideological lines.

Additionally, the interim docket has (at least partly) emerged from the shadows: written opinions accompanied 31% of substantive applications, continuing the dramatic increase from near-zero during 2015-17 and 23% in 2023.

For many more findings, please check out the Stat Pack itself, which can be downloaded below.

As this docket continues to generate increased attention and influence, this Stat Pack should serve as an invaluable resource for anyone seeking to understand the nature of the current court.

Posted in Court Analysis, Emergency appeals and applications, Featured

Recommended Citation: Taraleigh Davis, Introducing the Interim Relief Docket Stat Pack, SCOTUSblog (Jan. 28, 2026, 9:30 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/01/introducing-the-interim-relief-docket-stat-pack/

Recent Posts

View All

Supreme Court allows California to use congressional map benefitting Democrats

February 4, 2026 Read more

The Black Codes must not define America’s fundamental freedoms

February 4, 2026 Read more

There was a surge in executions in 2025. Here’s how the Supreme Court responded.

February 4, 2026 Read more

SCOTUStoday for Wednesday, February 4

February 4, 2026 Read more

Why equal protection can’t be settled by biology and statistics

February 3, 2026 Read more

The Supreme Court’s vanishing fall docket

February 3, 2026 Read more

SCOTUStoday for Tuesday, February 3

February 3, 2026 Read more

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Introducing the Interim Relief Docket Stat Pack – SCOTUSblog

SCOTUStoday for Tuesday, February 3 – SCOTUSblog

Newsletter

SCOTUStoday for Tuesday, February 3, 2026

By Kelsey Dallas and Nora Collins, on Feb 3, 2026

Facebook LinkedIn X Email Print

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson just lost out on a major award to the Dalai Lama. To understand why they were in competition, look to the Morning Reads section below.

SCOTUS Quick Hits

• On Jan. 20, a group of California Republicans asked the court on its interim docket to block the state from using its new map in this year’s elections. The case is now fully briefed, and the court’s decision could come at any time.
• The court also could rule at any time on an interim docket case on California’s policies for parental notification when public school students choose to use different pronouns or a different gender identity.
• The court has not yet indicated when it will next release opinions. If the court follows its typical pattern, the earliest the next opinion day may be is Friday, Feb. 20, when the justices are next scheduled to be in the courtroom.
• The court will next hear arguments on Monday, Feb. 23, the first day of its February sitting.

Morning Reads

• How the Supreme Court Secretly Made Itself Even More Secretive (Jodi Kantor, The New York Times)(Paywall) — Citing five unnamed sources familiar with the inner workings of the Supreme Court, The New York Times reported on Monday that Chief Justice John Roberts began asking court employees to sign nondisclosure agreements in November 2024. “The chief justice acted after a series of unusual leaks of internal court documents, most notably of the decision overturning the right to abortion, and news reports about ethical lapses by the justices,” according to the Times. The nondisclosure agreements build on “softer measures” used in the past “to preserve confidentiality,” such as codes of conduct and pledges. “Former clerks and academics, told by The Times about the Supreme Court’s new nondisclosure agreements, said they were a sign that the justices felt they could no longer rely on more informal pledges or longstanding norms to guard their internal workings from public view.”
• Republican congressman introduces bill to set term limits for federal judges (Aileen Wingblad, The Oakland Press) — U.S. Rep. Tom Barrett, a Republican from Michigan, “has introduced a constitutional amendment to establish term limits for federal judges,” according to The Oakland Press. “Introduced Jan. 30, H.J. Resolution 145 — the Judicial Term Limits Amendment — would limit federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, to a 20-year term. It would also prevent judges who complete a 20-year term from being reappointed to the same federal court.” In a press release, Barrett contended that ending lifetime appointments would strengthen the judiciary. “Lifetime appointments were designed to protect judicial independence, but instead have too often emboldened judges to wield their enormous power long after they should have retired. When our Constitution was ratified, 20 years practically was a lifetime appointment,” he said.
• Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson gets shout out but no win at Grammys (Maureen Groppe, USA Today) — Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson attended the Grammys on Sunday “as a nominee for best audio book, narration and storytelling recording for the audio of her 2025 memoir ‘Lovely One,’” according to USA Today. The camera cut to her during the broadcast as host Trevor Noah joked about the power of a Supreme Court justice. “With her being here, you know what that means,” Noah said. “For the first time ever, if you lose a Grammy, you can appeal directly to the Supreme Court.” Jackson did not win the award, which went to the Dalai Lama.
• Biden Monuments Case to Focus on State Lawmakers’ Ability to Sue (Bobby Magill, Bloomberg Law) — Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit will hear argument on “whether state lawmakers have standing to challenge” a president’s “use of the Antiquities Act to create national monuments,” according to Bloomberg Law. If the 9th Circuit – or, eventually, the Supreme Court – holds that state legislatures have standing to sue the federal government without the support of their state’s governor or attorney general, it could pave the way toward “more litigation on many fronts,” said Dave Owen, an environmental law professor at the University of California College of the Law. Another environmental law professor, Andrew Mergen of Harvard Law School, described the case as “one to watch” because of broader uncertainty surrounding the standing doctrine. “I suspect that if the legislature loses here, they will seek Supreme Court review,” he said.
• Donald J. Trump: My Tariffs Have Brought America Back (Donald J. Trump, The Wall Street Journal)(Paywall) — In a column for The Wall Street Journal, President Donald Trump defended his trade policy, arguing that his tariffs “have created an American economic miracle.” He continued, “[W]ith the help of tariffs, we have cut that federal budget deficit by a staggering 27% in a single year, and even more incredibly, we have slashed our monthly trade deficit by an astonishing 77%—all with virtually no inflation, which everyone said could not be done. … I sincerely hope the Supreme Court is watching these numbers, because our country has never seen anything like them!”

A Closer Look: How the Black Robe Became the Supreme Court Standard

Justice Neil Gorsuch once described the court as “just nine old people in polyester black robes that we have to buy at the uniform supply store.” Nevertheless, those black robes are one of the court’s most recognizable features – some say a visual emblem of unity, others authority, and others detachment from a justice (or judge’s) personal convictions.

The judicial robe itself derives from English practice, where judges wore elaborate garments in scarlet, green, violet, or black (colors varied by season, court, or occasion) often trimmed with fur and paired with powdered wigs. In the new United States, republican ideals prompted resistance to such ornamentation (Thomas Jefferson supposedly decried the “monstrous wig” and unnecessary official apparel as remnants of the monarchy). A compromise thus took hold: colorful robes were kept, sans wigs.

The shift to plain black, some say, occurred under Chief Justice John Marshall. Others maintain it happened before Marshall got on the bench (it’s understandably a point of contention among Supreme Court nerds – if you want to read more about the “robe myth,” go here.) Either way, in his first term in 1801, Marshall appeared in a simple black silk robe while his colleagues retained more colorful or trimmed versions, generally linked to their law school affiliations. By the next year, the entire court had followed his example. 

Beyond simplicity, the black robe can carry symbolic weight, as a shared garment for the court to speak with one institutional voice. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote that the robe reminds justices they act not as individuals but collectively to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law. Another metaphor holds that black results when all colors in the spectrum are combined, thus reminding wearers that despite personal differences, they are bound together in “this single garment, this fabric of justice.” When asked about the significance of their robes, judges also cited the robe as marking the distinction between one’s personal life and the judicial role. 

No court rule governs robe style or color; the black robe endures purely by tradition (although most judges have said they like wearing the robe). Justices purchase their own, often from commercial suppliers (such as Bentley and Simon) offering simple polyester models or custom versions with lined collars and seasonal weights. Per Politico’s profile of Bentley and Simon, “Only about 2,000 gowns are made each year; the top-of-the-line J-71 sells for about $400.”

Even within the black palette, shades can differ noticeably – some jet, others faded – due to fabric, age, or manufacturer. Justices also have occasionally introduced personal touches: Chief Justice William Rehnquist added gold stripes to his sleeves, reportedly inspired by a costume in a Gilbert and Sullivan opera where the lord chief justice wore these on his robe. Some have even commented on what justices wear under their robes. Female justices have incorporated lace jabots or distinctive collars – O’Connor with a white collar, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg with a variety of lace collars, including a notable “dissent jabot.”

But perhaps the robe is best summed up by O’Connor’s answer to people who ask if, as the first woman on the Supreme Court, she had any special preferences for the uniform of justice. “Honestly, I took whatever was available and put it on.”

SCOTUS Quote

“No man or group is above the law. Nor is any beyond its protection. These truths apply equally to the Government.” –— Justice Wiley Rutledge in United States v. United Mine Workers

Continue/Read Original Article Here: SCOTUStoday for Tuesday, February 3 – SCOTUSblog

SCOTUStoday for Monday, January 12 – SCOTUSblog

Newsletter

SCOTUStoday for Monday, January 12

By Kelsey Dallas, on Jan 12, 2026

Facebook LinkedIn X Email Print

Today marks the start of the court’s January argument session. The court will hear seven arguments over the next 10 days on such issues as transgender athletes competing in women’s sports, gun rights, and President Donald Trump’s bid to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors.

SCOTUS Quick Hits

• The Supreme Court released an opinion on Friday, but perhaps not the one you were expecting. The 5-4 ruling was in Bowe v. United States, a case on a federal prisoner’s efforts to obtain post-conviction relief. In an opinion from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court held that a federal law instructing courts to dismiss a claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application does not apply to motions filed by federal prisoners. Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, joined in full by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, and in part by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
• Also on Friday, the court indicated that it may announce opinions on Wednesday at 10 a.m. EST. SCOTUSblog will be live blogging any opinion announcements beginning at 9:30.
• Friday afternoon, the court announced that it had granted review in five cases. For more on these disputes, see the On Site section below.
• This morning, the court is expected to release an order list with denied petitions and other case updates at 9:30 a.m. EST.
• The justices will hear argument today in Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, on the circumstances in which a federal contractor can transfer a case from state to federal court. Justice Samuel Alito will not participate because he has a financial interest in ConocoPhillips, which is the parent company of one of the defendants.
• Tomorrow, the justices will hear arguments in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., on laws barring transgender athletes from participating on women’s and girls’ sports teams. We will be live blogging the arguments beginning at 9:30 a.m. EST.

Morning Reads

• Eyes are on Gorsuch as Supreme Court weighs rights of trans athletes (Julian Mark, The Washington Post)(Paywall) — In 2020, Justice Neil Gorsuch “wrote one of the Supreme Court’s most consequential rulings expanding legal rights for gay and transgender people” in a case on employment discrimination. Now, “Gorsuch is again in the spotlight,” according to The Washington Post, as the court considers two disputes over laws preventing transgender athletes from competing in women’s and girls’ sports. The law’s opponents are drawing on that 2020 ruling as they try to persuade Gorsuch to protect transgender athletes, per the Post, while the law’s supporters argue that “sports is different from the workplace.”
• Supreme Court, Swamped by Emergencies, Neglects Rest of Docket (Adam Liptak, The New York Times)(Paywall) — The court’s Friday ruling in Bowe v. United States has the distinction of being the first opinion in an argued case to be released this term. The fact that it didn’t arrive until January is notable, because “[o]ver the last 80 years, the Supreme Court has only once before waited until January to issue its first opinion in an argued case,” according to The New York Times. Experts specializing in Supreme Court advocacy told the Times that “a spike in action on the court’s other docket,” where the justices address requests for interim relief, “seems to have diverted the court from its merits docket,” slowing the pace of opinions.
• These are the books families opted-out of after Supreme Court fight (Talia Richman, The Baltimore Banner) — In a June 27 ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor, the “Supreme Court sided with a group of parents [in Montgomery County, Maryland] who sought the right to opt-out of lessons that included LGBTQ storybooks,” holding that refusing such opt-out requests violates religious freedom. Since then, according to The Baltimore Banner, “[i]n a district of more than 156,000 students, just 56 families asked Montgomery County school leaders to excuse their child from reading books that conflict with their religious beliefs.” These requests mostly came from “the parents of elementary schoolers” and “generally centered around books with LGBTQ characters, as well as those that included themes of diversity.”
• Lawsuits by Trump allies could shape how the 2030 census is done and who will be counted (Mike Schneider, Associated Press) — “The next U.S. census is four years away,” but legal battles over it have already begun, according to the Associated Press. “Allies of President Donald Trump are behind the federal lawsuits challenging various aspects of the once-a-decade count by the U.S. Census Bureau,” including the inclusion of noncitizens. “The first Trump administration also attempted to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census questionnaire, a move that was blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court.”
• Supreme Court Clerk Hiring Watch: Happy New Hires (David Lat, Original Jurisdiction) — In a post for his Substack, David Lat offered an update on Supreme Court clerk hiring and highlighted recent research on the jobs clerks typically have before and after working for a justice. He also highlighted various studies about clerkships, including investigations into what factors contribute to judges becoming feeder judges for the Supreme Court, such as the training they offer their clerks, personal relationships, and ideological compatibility.

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: SCOTUStoday for Monday, January 12 – SCOTUSblog

BRIEF: Supreme Court Lets Texas Use New Congressional Map in 2026 – DrWeb’s Domain

BRIEF: Supreme Court Lets Texas Use New Congressional Map in 2026

BRIEF: Supreme Court Lets Texas Use New Congressional Map in 2026

December 4, 2025 — DrWeb’s Domain

Editor’s Note: I was assisted in preparing this brief on today’s SCOTUS ruling for Trump Administration –again. I sense a pattern?

ChatGPT prepared the brief format, did core online research, and we edited together the summary. I can save and re-use the layout for key new events or information. The summary PDF in inline below, and also linked for you in the Sources. The new site logo for BRIEF was prepared by Sora.–DrWeb

ChatGPT prepared the brief format, did core online research, and we edited together the summary. I can save and re-use the layout for key new events or information. The summary PDF in inline below, and also linked for you in the Sources. –DrWeb

The Supreme Court has cleared the way for Texas to use its new congressional map in the 2026 elections, granting a stay in Abbott v. League of United Latin American Citizens (No. 25A608). The 6–3 order blocks a lower-court ruling that found the map likely discriminates against Latino voters, and keeps in place a plan widely viewed as favorable to Texas Republicans and former President Trump.

The unsigned majority stresses judicial caution about changing election rules once candidate filing is underway, leaning on its recent use of the so-called Purcell principle. It also faults the three-judge district court for not giving enough deference to the legislature’s stated, ostensibly partisan motives, and for moving too aggressively while primaries are already on the calendar.

In dissent, Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, accuses the Court of quietly rewriting how Voting Rights Act cases work. The dissent argues that the trial court carefully documented racial vote dilution and that with the 2026 elections still months away, there was ample time to fix the map instead of locking it in for this cycle.

Practically, the ruling means Texas keeps a map that could help Republicans hold or gain House seats in a closely divided Congress, and it raises the bar for future challenges to partisan-tilted maps nationwide. It is another sign that federal oversight of redistricting is shrinking, even as states openly redraw lines to maximize partisan advantage.

Sources

1. Supreme Court of the United States, Abbott v. League of United Latin American Citizens, No. 25A608 (Dec. 4, 2025) — Opinion and dissent (PDF)
2. Associated Press — “Supreme Court allows Texas to use a congressional map favorable to Republicans in 2026”
3. Reuters — “Supreme Court revives pro-Republican Texas voting map sought by Trump”
4. SCOTUSblog — Case summary and analysis of the Texas redistricting stay

#2026 #63Vote #Brief #CongressionalMap #DissentsByKagan #DrWebSDomain #KetanjiBrownJackson #LatinoVoters #PartisanAdvantage #RedState #SCOTUS #SCOTUSFavorsTrump #SCOTUSblog #SoniaSotomayor #SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStates #Texas #VotingRightsCases #VRA

A justice’s most lasting legacy – SCOTUSblog

Home Newsletters, EMPIRICAL SCOTUS

A justice’s most lasting legacy

By Adam Feldman, on Nov 14, 2025

Empirical SCOTUS is a recurring series by Adam Feldman that looks at Supreme Court data, primarily in the form of opinions and oral arguments, to provide insights into the justices’ decision making and what we can expect from the court in the future.

Among a president’s most enduring legacies are the federal judges they appoint – particularly Supreme Court justices. This permanence stems from life tenure, a constitutional provision that ensures judicial independence but also transforms each appointment into a generational bet on the nation’s legal future.

Yet history is littered with presidential miscalculations. President Dwight D. Eisenhower supposedly called his appointment of Earl Warren as chief justice one of his “biggest mistakes,” as Warren became a liberal stalwart for over a decade. Justices John Paul Stevens and David Souter, both nominated by Republican presidents, evolved into some of the court’s most liberal members. Had Republican presidents consistently installed reliably conservative justices since the mid-20th century, the court would have been far more conservative than it actually was (and perhaps even is today).

But presidential legacy is only part of the story. The judges themselves have developed their own succession strategies. In recent years, a striking pattern has emerged: Supreme Court justices now appear ready to retire only with tacit – or perhaps explicit – assurances that they will be replaced by someone they helped shape, typically a former clerk. This, combined with the fact that so many such clerks now serve as judges on the lower courts, has had profound effects – and will continue to do so – on the federal judiciary. 

Judicial successors 

Supreme Court clerkships represent a relatively modern phenomenon, emerging primarily as the court evolved through the 20th century. The number of clerks allocated to each justice has steadily increased, from two until 1969, to three in the 1970s, and to four in 1980. This has also expanded the pool of potential judicial heirs. Justice Byron White was the first justice to have clerked for a former justice – Chief Justice Fred Vinson in his case. Chief Justice William Rehnquist clerked for Robert Jackson, and Stevens for Wiley Rutledge. Stevens was confirmed in 1975. Of the next several justices – Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Souter, Clarence Thomas, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg – none held a Supreme Court clerkship. 

Then came Justice Stephen Breyer, confirmed in 1994, who had clerked for Justice Arthur Goldberg. The majority of justices appointed after 1994 held Supreme Court clerkships at one point in their careers – Chief Justice John Roberts for Rehnquist, Elena Kagan for Thurgood Marshall, Neil Gorsuch for Kennedy (although he was originally hired by White before his retirement), Brett Kavanaugh for Kennedy, Amy Coney Barrett for Scalia, and Ketanji Brown Jackson for Breyer. Neither Samuel Alito nor Sonia Sotomayor clerked at the Supreme Court level, leaving them a minority in this regard.

Indeed, since Kennedy retired in 2018, the phenomenon of justices being replaced by their clerks has become the norm rather than the exception. As noted, not one but two of Kennedy’s former clerks were appointed by President Donald Trump in succession: Gorsuch filled Scalia’s seat, which had remained vacant longer than any in court history, and Kennedy’s own seat went to Kavanaugh. According to Politico, Kennedy’s backroom conversations with Trump prior to his departure may have been used to facilitate a transition. For Trump, this was advantageous: he could install more consistently conservative justices than Kennedy, who had occasionally sided with liberals on consequential civil liberties cases like the same-sex marriage decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.

This trend of former clerks joining the court continued with Barrett, a Scalia clerk, replacing Ginsburg after her death, and Jackson, a Breyer clerk, succeeding her former mentor. 

The downstream effects of Supreme Court clerkships can reshape American law across generations. Consider the lineage from Jackson to Rehnquist, who clerked for Jackson, to Roberts, who clerked for Rehnquist. And this chain of influence now spans more than half a century, with each generation of jurists passing their interpretive methods to the next.

Breaking down the numbers

But that is not the full picture. The data also reveals how widespread former Supreme Court clerks are in the federal judiciary as a whole.

Thomas leads by a substantial margin, with 12 former clerks hired as federal judges – a testament both to his long tenure and his deliberate cultivation of conservative judicial talent. Kennedy follows with 10 clerk-judges, including the two Supreme Court justices mentioned earlier. Rehnquist placed eight former clerks, continuing his influence even after his 2005 death.

Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Ginsburg each count six former clerks in the federal judiciary, and Stevens also placed six. Alito has four clerk-judges, while Breyer and Souter each have three. (Perhaps most surprisingly, given his position as chief justice, Roberts has not yet seen a former clerk become a federal judge.)

Implications: the self-replicating judiciary

These patterns of clerk placement, both on the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court itself, point toward a fundamental transformation in how the federal judiciary perpetuates itself. What began as perhaps an informal preference for continuity has evolved into something approaching a self-replicating system, where judicial philosophies pass from one generation to the next through carefully cultivated mentor-clerk relationships. And the implications extend far beyond individual careers or even the ideological balance of particular courts.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: A justice’s most lasting legacy – SCOTUSblog

#2025 #america #clerks #donaldTrump #education #federalJudiciary #health #history #influences #justice #justices #libraries #library #libraryOfCongress #opinion #politics #resistance #science #scotus #scotusblog #supremeCourtOfTheUnitedStates #trump #trumpAdministration #unitedStates

The president’s power to deploy troops domestically: an explainer

By Kelsey Dallas
Updated on Oct. 28 at 9:16 p.m.

Since June, President Donald Trump has ordered several #NationalGuard deployments within the United States, often against the wishes of the Democratic governors of the states where troops are being sent. The resulting legal battles have put a spotlight on the president’s authority to federalize troops and use them domestically. How far, exactly, does this power extend?

"Overview:
This document explores President Trump's authority to deploy National Guard troops domestically, highlighting legal frameworks, recent deployments, and ongoing court challenges. ​

Presidential Authority and Legal Framework

- The Constitution grants Congress the power to call forth the militia, while the president commands troops under Article II. ​
- The Militia Act of 1792 allows the president to call troops for domestic insurrections or to enforce U.S. laws. ​
- Trump has invoked 10 U.S.C. ​ § 12406, which permits federalizing National Guard troops to address foreign invasions, rebellions, or law enforcement needs. ​
- Legal challenges focus on whether conditions in cities like Los Angeles, Portland, and Chicago meet the criteria for federal troop deployment. ​

Recent Deployments and Legal Challenges

- Trump has deployed National Guard troops to cities with Democratic governors, citing rising crime rates and the need for federal law enforcement support. ​
- Legal disputes have arisen, particularly in Chicago, where a judge ruled the deployment unnecessary, and similar rulings occurred in Los Angeles and Portland. ​
- The 9th Circuit Court has paused lower court orders blocking deployments, emphasizing deference to presidential authority in determining troop necessity. ​

Key Legal Cases and Acts

- Martin v. Mott (1827) established that a president's decision to call up militia cannot be questioned, though interpretations vary today regarding judicial review. ​
- The Posse Comitatus Act (1878) limits military involvement in domestic law enforcement, which has been a point of contention in recent deployments. ​
- The Insurrection Act allows broader presidential authority to deploy troops without the limitations of the Posse Comitatus Act, enabling action when law enforcement is impracticable. ​

Future Implications

- Trump has suggested he may invoke the Insurrection Act if other legal avenues fail. ​
- The Supreme Court's upcoming ruling on the Chicago deployment could clarify the extent of presidential power under Section 12406 and its implications for future troop deployments."

Full article:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/10/the-presidents-power-to-deploy-troops-domestically-an-explainer/

#SCOTUSBlog #USPol #TrumpSucks #NationalGuardReactionForces #PosseComitatus #FoodInsecurity
#SoylentGreen #HungerGames
#CapitolGuards #BellRiots #FightForTheFuture

SCOTUStoday for Wednesday, October 8 – SCOTUSblog – Trump keeps threatening to use the Insurrection Act. What is it?

Newsletter

SCOTUStoday for Wednesday, October 8

By Kelsey Dallas and Nora Collins, on Oct 8, 2025

Trump administration

Trump keeps threatening to use the Insurrection Act. What is it?

President Donald Trump has said repeatedly he could invoke the 1807 statute, which gives the president the power to deploy the U.S. military domestically.

Oct. 7, 2025, 2:17 PM PDT, By Gary Grumbach and Dareh Gregorian

President Donald Trump suggested numerous times this week that he could invoke the sweeping presidential powers granted by the Insurrection Act “if necessary.”

“It’s been invoked before,” Trump told reporters Tuesday, adding, “We want safe cities.”

Using the Insurrection Act was something Trump repeatedly suggested he might do in his first term, although he never actually did.

A spokeswoman for the White House, Abigail Jackson, said in a statement Tuesday that the president has “exercised his lawful authority to protect federal officers and assets. President Trump will not turn a blind eye to the lawlessness plaguing American cities.”

Here’s a look at what the Insurrection Act is, and what it would enable the president to do.

What is the Insurrection Act?

While the military is generally barred from being deployed for domestic law enforcement without congressional authorization, the Insurrection Act gives the president power to deploy the U.S. military domestically and to federalize National Guard troops during specific circumstances.

It was signed into law by President Thomas Jefferson in March 1807.

Has it ever been used before?

Many times, but not in decades.

George Washington used an earlier version of the law to stamp out the Whiskey Rebellion in 1792.

President George H.W. Bush was the last to use it during the deadly 1992 Los Angeles riots, following a request from the city’s Democratic mayor and the state’s Republican governor.

What can trigger the use of the Insurrection Act?

While one justification for invoking the act is clear — that the president can take action if asked to do so by a governor or a Legislature — the other standards mentioned in the statute are broad and vague, giving the president wide latitude.

“Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings,he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion,” the statute reads.

Another section says the president, “by using the militia or the armed forces, or both,” shall “takesuch measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” if it “hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State,” or if it “opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United Statesor impedes the course of justice under those laws.”

The statutes don’t define the terms, essentially leaving it up to the president to determine what constitutes an insurrection or rebellion, and when it’s been quelled.

Chief Justice Melville Fuller, who served from 1888-1910, took the judicial oath on this day in 1888. To mark the occasion, consider shaking someone’s hand. Fuller instituted the practice of having the justices shake hands before taking the bench and before private conferences “as a reminder that differences of opinion on the Court did not preclude overall harmony of purpose,” according to the Supreme Court’s website.

Morning Reads

• Police: Man arrested at D.C. Catholic church had 200 homemade explosives (Emma Uber, The Washington Post) — D.C. court records show that the man arrested on Sunday morning before a church service expected to be attended by several Supreme Court justices, known as the Red Mass, “had more than 200 handmade destructive devices” in a tent outside the cathedral and a notebook in which he “expressed animosity toward the Catholic Church, Supreme Court justices, members of the Jewish faith and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement,” according to The Washington Post. The man, Louis Geri, “faces eight charges in connection to the incident Sunday, including manufacture or possession of a weapon of mass destruction in furtherance of a hate crime.” He is being held without bond.
• What is the Alliance Defending Freedom? (Abbie VanSickle, The New York Times) — Attorneys with the Alliance Defending Freedom were in front of the court on Tuesday representing Kaley Chiles in her challenge to Colorado’s “conversion therapy” ban. The law firm, “founded more than three decades ago as a legal-defense fund focused on conservative Christian issues, has become a mainstay before the Supreme Court in recent years, particularly in high-profile culture war cases,” according to The New York Times. ADF also is involved in upcoming cases on transgender athletes and faith-based pregnancy centers.
• 5th Circuit will reconsider Louisiana’s 10 Commandments law after partial court struck it down (Patrick Wall, The Times-Picayune) — The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit agreed on Monday to hear a case on a Louisiana law requiring “public schools and colleges to post the Ten Commandments in classrooms,” according to The Times-Picayune. A three-judge panel previously held that the law is “plainly unconstitutional.” The dispute “has been closely watched as a test of the traditional divide between church and state, and legal observers say it’s likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately hear the case.”
• Former Attorney General Eric Holder calls on Democrats to focus on Supreme Court expansion, term limits (Hanna Panreck, Fox News) — During an appearance on the At Our Table podcast, former Attorney General Eric Holder called on the Democratic Party to “focus on expanding the Supreme Court,” according to Fox News. “I think the Supreme Court has to be reformed, potentially, you know, expanded. We cannot simply allow this court to continue to do that which it has done. They don’t focus on precedent, they focus on personnel. And by that, I mean, you know, they think, ‘Alright, we’ve got six votes and we can now do things that are inconsistent with precedent, long-term precedents that have been put in place,’ to the detriment of our democracy, to the detriment of fairness — and that means political fairness as well as economic fairness,” Holder said. At minimum, he added, the Democratic Party platform should include a call for term limits of 18 years for Supreme Court justices.
• Enshrine Nine (Edward Whelan, NYU Law’s Democracy Project) — Edward Whelan also addressed Supreme Court expansion in a recent column for NYU Law’s Democracy Project, although, unlike Holder, he argued against it. “Packing the Court would threaten to destroy its legitimacy as an institution independent of politics. To be sure, the process of nominating and confirming Supreme Court justices is inherently and inescapably political. But it’s one thing to have politics—and, yes, political hardball—shape how vacancies are filled as they arise. It’s quite another to have politics create a whole new set of seats for the purpose of transforming the Court,” he wrote.

SCOTUS Quick Hits

• The justices will hear argument today in two cases: Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections (on the circumstances under which a federal candidate can challenge state election rules) and U.S. Postal Service v. Konan (on whether someone can sue the government over intentionally undelivered mail). In the coming days, SCOTUSblog will have an argument analysis for each case.
• On Monday, the court declined to temporarily block a district court order requiring changes to the Google Play app store based on its violation of antitrust law. The court offered no explanation for its denial, as is its custom on the interim docket.
• The justices will take part in a private conference on Friday, where they will discuss cases and petitions. An order list outlining some of what was decided at the conference is expected on Tuesday at 9:30 a.m. EDT.

A Closer Look: Jurisdiction Stripping

As discussed in some of the news above, although Supreme Court justices have life tenure, Congress has the power to check the court’s behavior through structural reforms (such as changing the number of justices), affecting its makeup (by confirming and impeaching justices), and through some other legislative actions (such as controlling the judiciary’s budget).

Perhaps one of the most direct (and less mentioned) mechanisms is jurisdiction stripping. Under Article III, the court has what is known as “original jurisdiction” – which means that it is the first to hear and rule on the dispute – over “[c]ases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party.” The court hears all other cases on appeal from a lower-court decision. And, according to the Constitution, the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction is subject to “such Exceptions, and . . . such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” To many, this has been understood to mean that lawmakers can restrict the kinds of cases the Supreme Court can review on appeal.

Congress has generally used jurisdiction stripping only in isolated instances. In the 1869 case of Ex parte McCardle, for example, the court upheld the legislative branch’s power to deny the Supreme Court’s authority to hear a habeas petition on appeal. More recently, in 1996, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act limited the court’s ability to review deportation orders.

As Stephen Wermiel wrote in his SCOTUSblog column, jurisdiction stripping follows broader discussions on the separation of powers, recently reflected in the No Kings Act proposed by Senate Democrats in 2024, which would strip the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over presidential immunity cases after Trump v. United States (and send the cases instead to lower courts). Even though that bill may not go anywhere, it has put jurisdiction stripping back in the news.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: SCOTUStoday for Wednesday, October 8 – SCOTUSblog

#2025 #America #Authoritarianism #DonaldTrump #Education #Health #History #InsurrectionAct #Libraries #Library #LibraryOfCongress #Opinion #Politics #Resistance #Science #SCOTUS #SCOTUSblog #Trump #TrumpAdministration #UnitedStates

SCOTUStoday for Monday, October 6 – SCOTUSblog

Newsletter

SCOTUStoday for Monday, October 6

By Kelsey Dallas, on Oct 6, 2025

It’s the first Monday in October, and since 1917, that’s meant the Supreme Court is back in session. However, over the past 108 years, the justices haven’t always heard cases on the first Monday in October, as they will today. “Prior to World War II, the first day at court was mostly ceremonial and included a visit to the White House to see the President,” according to the National Constitution Center.

Morning Reads

• Legal setbacks mount for Trump’s birthright order before likely Supreme Court review (Michael Casey and Sudhin Thanawala, Associated Press) — A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit ruled on Friday that President Donald Trump cannot enforce his executive order that ended “automatic citizenship for the children of people in the country illegally or temporarily,” according to the Associated Press. Four other courts had previously “issued or upheld” similar decisions this summer, prompting the Trump administration to seek Supreme Court review of the birthright citizenship order in two of those cases. In a Friday statement, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson criticized the 1st Circuit’s decision and “said the administration looked forward to ‘being vindicated by the Supreme Court.’”
• Justice Kavanaugh’s Would-Be Assassin Sentenced to 8 Years in Prison (Mattathias Schwartz, The New York Times) — U.S. District Judge Deborah L. Boardman sentenced Sophie Roske, “charged under her legal name, Nicholas J. Roske,” “to just over eight years — 97 months — in prison on Friday for a 2022 attempt to assassinate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh,” according to The New York Times. Prosecutors had asked for a sentence of at least 30 years. “Judge Boardman’s explanation of her sentence restated some of the arguments made by Ms. Roske’s attorneys, who said that a lesser sentence was warranted because Ms. Roske, who had no prior criminal history, had abandoned her plan at the final moment, surrendered to authorities, told them about the plot and was genuinely remorseful.” Boardman also said “that a lower sentence was warranted because of an executive order issued by President Trump mandating that transgender women be held at male-only federal facilities, which she said could interfere with her continuing to receive gender transition care.”
• As justices confront harassment, death threats and an assassination attempt, Barrett declares “I’m not afraid” (Jan Crawford, CBS News) — After Friday’s sentencing, Jan Crawford at CBS News reflected a conversation she had with Justice Amy Coney Barrett about security concerns, recalling Barrett’s assertion that she’s “not afraid.” “You can’t live your life in fear,” Barrett said. “And I think people who threaten — the goal is to cause fear. And I’m not afraid. I’m not going to reward threats with their intended reaction.” She added that she’s learned to tune out criticism because criticism is inevitable. “I just think you have to know who you are,” Barrett said, “and make decisions that you decide are right, and stick with your priorities and not worry about the feedback you get from others, whether it’s negative or whether it’s positive.”
• Justice Samuel Alito says he is not calling for same-sex marriage ruling to be overturned (Lawrence Hurley, NBC News) — Justice Samuel Alito on Friday addressed the court’s 2022 ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, explaining that he doesn’t feel that it put “other key decisions … in the firing line,” according to NBC News. Specifically, he said that the 2022 ruling was not meant to “disturb” the court’s 2015 decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide, which was challenged in a recent cert petition. “In commenting on Obergefell, I am not suggesting that the decision in that case should be overruled,” he said.
• Nevada Supreme Court denies NFL rehearing in Jon Gruden case (Bob Harkins, The Athletic) — The Nevada Supreme Court on Thursday denied the National Football League’s request to reconsider its ruling in favor of former Las Vegas Raiders coach Jon Gruden. The August ruling said that Gruden’s lawsuit against the league could go to public trial instead of “into the league’s arbitration process,” according to The Athletic. In the lawsuit, Gruden accuses the league of intentionally leaking emails in which he used “racist, homophobic and sexist” language as part of a “malicious and orchestrated campaign” against him. The NFL could appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.

Editor’s Note: These are good posts to follow on SCOTUS. Get your own free posts!

Continue/Read Original Article Here: SCOTUStoday for Monday, October 6 – SCOTUSblog

#2025 #America #DonaldTrump #Education #FallTerm #Health #History #Libraries #Library #LibraryOfCongress #Newsletter #October6 #Opinion #Politics #Resistance #Science #SCOTUS #SCOTUSblog #ShadowDocket #Trump #TrumpAdministration #TrumpSCases #UnitedStates

SCOTUStoday for Tuesday -September 30 – SCOTUSblog

Newsletter

SCOTUStoday for Tuesday, September 30

By Kelsey Dallas and Nora Collins, on Sep 30, 2025

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s investiture ceremony took place on this day in 2022, but she actually had been serving on the court for three months by that point after taking the Constitutional Oath and Judicial Oath on June 30. As the most junior justice, she’s in charge of taking notes during the justices’ private conferences, among other tasks.

Morning Reads

• Federal courts may quickly face curtailed operations if government shuts down (Devin Dwyer, ABC News) — Federal courts may be forced to “quickly curtail operations” if the funding battle in Congress leads to a government shutdown this week, but the Supreme Court “would be largely unaffected,” according to ABC News. “In the event of a lapse of appropriations, the Court will continue to conduct its normal operations,” Supreme Court spokeswoman Patricia McCabe told ABC. “The Court will rely on permanent funds not subject to annual approval, as it has in the past, to maintain operations through the duration of short-term lapses of annual appropriations.” Lower courts, on the other hand, may have to delay trials and other hearings, because they have fewer funds on hand due, in part, to “years of tighter budgets and rising costs.”
• The Roberts court turns 20 (Kelsey Reichmann, Courthouse News Service) — Monday marked 20 years since Chief Justice John Roberts became the leader of the Supreme Court. And as the Roberts court enters its third decade, it’s preparing to take on a number of major issues, including “elections, free speech and executive authority,” reports Courthouse News Service. “While the justices have pushed back against claims of judicial activism, the Supreme Court 2025 lineup presents a slew of opportunities for the Roberts court to overturn precedent and issue decisions that could ripple across the U.S. for the next 20 years.”
• ‘The Supreme Court got it wrong’: SC Attorney General calls for death penalty for child rapists (WIS News 10 Staff) — Nearly half of state attorneys general sent a letter to the Justice Department and White House General Counsel this month in which they called on federal officials to support their effort to challenge a 2008 Supreme Court decision that “barred states from imposing the death penalty in cases of child rape where the victim did not die,” according to WIS News 10 in South Carolina. That decision, in Kennedy v. Louisiana, said that imposing the death penalty in such cases violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
• Ex-Michigan football players vow to appeal after NIL lawsuit against BTN, NCAA dismissed (Tony Garcia, Detroit Free Press) — It’s been four years since the Supreme Court shook up the world of college sports by holding that the NCAA had violated antitrust laws by limiting the kinds of compensation its schools could provide to student-athletes. That decision cleared the way for college athletes to be paid for their name, image, and likeness, or NIL, rights, while also prompting a new wave of lawsuits. One such suit brought by 300 former Michigan athletes against the NCAA and Big Ten Network over the use of their NIL rights was recently dismissed by a district court, which determined that “it fell outside of the statute of limitations,” according to the Detroit Free Press. The athletes’ attorney has vowed to appeal all the way “to the Supreme Court if necessary.”
• The Roberts Court Turns Twenty (Steven Vladeck, One First) — Steve Vladeck also covered the first 20 years of the Roberts court on Monday and contended that the chief justice is not doing enough to steer the court to more stable ground as it struggles with a reputational crisis. “Roberts could move the Court by voting differently in some of these cases; he has chosen not to. Roberts could speak up more about the unprecedented institutional (and physical) threats to the judiciary; save for one cryptic statement about impeachment, he has chosen not to. Roberts could write separately in cases in which he believes he is obliged to grant emergency relief to the Trump administration but doesn’t wish to condone its (public or litigation) behavior; he has chosen not to,” Vladeck wrote.
• MORE ONLINE….

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: SCOTUStoday for Tuesday, September 30 – SCOTUSblog

#2025 #America #DonaldTrump #Education #Health #History #Libraries #Library #LibraryOfCongress #Opinion #Politics #Resistance #Science #SCOTUS #SCOTUSblog #September30 #SupremeCourt #Trump #TrumpAdministration #USSupremeCourt #UnitedStates

SCOTUStoday for Monday, September 22, 2025 – SCOTUSblog

Editor’s Note: Consider getting this newsletter for yourself. Given the damaging role this Court on the Right-Wing heavily now is causing, it’s vital we know how to act to America’s current crisis.

Newsletter

SCOTUStoday for Monday, September 22

By Kelsey Dallas and Nora Collins, on Sep 22, 2025

Welcome to SCOTUStoday, an expanded newsletter from SCOTUSblog that will deliver the most important information on the Supreme Court right to your inbox. In addition to the “Morning Reads” that you’re used to, SCOTUStoday offers “SCOTUS Quick Hits,” detailing the latest happenings on the court; “A Closer Look,” a short feature piece on one particularly salient aspect of the court’s work; and “On Site,” an overview of the most popular and influential articles on SCOTUSblog.

As before, please send any questions or comments to scotusblog@thedispatch.com. We are thrilled to have you join us for this new phase of SCOTUSblog.

Morning Reads

• Man who tried to assassinate Kavanaugh in 2022 wanted to kill 3 justices, prosecutors say (Scott MacFarlane and Melissa Quinn, CBS News) — In a sentencing memorandum filed on Friday, federal prosecutors said that Nicholas Roske, the “California man who pleaded guilty to attempting to assassinate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2022,” planned to kill three justices “in an effort to ‘single-handedly alter the constitutional order for ideological ends,’” according to CBS News. Prosecutors said they uncovered Discord messages from Roske about his plan to “remove some people from the supreme court” in order to prevent the conservative majority from overturning Roe v. Wade. “Prosecutors are asking a judge to sentence Roske to at least 30 years to life in prison, arguing that his conduct is an affront to the Constitution and required ‘extensive premeditation.’”
• Justice Alito, in Rome, Says Religious Liberty is Under Siege (Motoko Rich and Abbie VanSickle, The New York Times) — Justice Samuel Alito spoke in Rome on Saturday about rising threats to religious freedom, not just in the United States, but around the world. “It is a great matter of concern and something that I think all Christians should be concerned about and should try to find ways of combating this problem,” Alito said during an event cosponsored by the United States Embassy to the Holy See, the Vatican and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, according to The New York Times. Alito, who briefly met with Pope Leo XIV during his visit to Rome, also reflected on the relationship between his work on the court and his Catholic faith. “I think reason is a hallmark of the Catholic intellectual tradition,” he said.
• Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson reflects on challenges, kindness at UVA (Jane Kelly, UVA Today) — Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined her Harvard Law School roommate Kimberly Jenkins Robinson at the University of Virginia on Thursday to speak about her journey to the Supreme Court and how her parents taught her to embrace academic opportunities without looking down on others who didn’t have the same opportunities. Her own grandmother didn’t know how to spell, but she modeled “generosity of spirit and consideration of others … before our family with every breath of her hard, beautiful life,” Jackson said, according to UVA Today. Students in the crowd sang “Happy Birthday” to Jackson at the end of the event; she turned 55 on Sept. 14.

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: SCOTUStoday for Monday, September 22 – SCOTUSblog

#2025 #America #Blog #DonaldTrump #Education #Health #History #Libraries #LibraryOfCongress #Newsletter #Opinion #Politics #Resistance #Science #SCOTUS #SCOTUSblog #Technology #Trump #TrumpAdministration #USSupremeCourt #UnitedStates

When I get depressed by our #polarized culture, a #SCOTUS term always makes me feel better. Download #SCOTUSblog's stat pack and see how the justices aren't nearly as divided (or in the same ways) as talking heads insist. #Reasonableness IS possible. https://www.scotusblog.com/stat-pack-2025/

> The Future of SCOTUSblog
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/the-future-of-scotusblog/

Shit, they sold out/got acquired. #SCOTUSBlog has always been a good source for anything #SCOTUS and other legal content. We'll have to see what the new landlords do.

#legal #ReferenceDesk #blog #SCOTUS

Our tainted Supreme Court 😔

#SupremeCourt allows Trump’s New York criminal sentencing to go forward

“Four of the court’s conservative justices – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh – indicated that they would have granted Trump’s request. Trump would have needed five votes to prevail, which means that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court’s three liberal justices in voting to allow the sentencing to proceed.”

#SCOTUSblog https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/01/supreme-court-allows-trumps-new-york-criminal-sentencing-to-go-forward/

First ruling in from #MAGASCOTUS continues conservative "deconstruction of the administrative state" in Corner Post ruling.

Allows businesses challenging agency rulings even if they DID NOT EXIST when the ruling was handed down.

In effect, allowing ex post facto challenges as long as it is within the "statute of limitations" to claim injury caused by the ruling.

H/t #SCOTUSBLOG
Scotusblog.com

As always, #SCOTUSBlog has all your live #SCOTUS opinion day needs:

https://www.scotusblog.com

#law #lawfedi #legal #SupremeCourt #uspol #politics #uspolitics

The most interesting things to watch about the Colorado Insurrection case, if it does come down this AM, in my opinion:

1. The result's reasoning: what is the agreed-upon legal hook?

2. How the opinion fractures: concurrences, dissents--groupings, etc. Justice Jackson especially (I'm curious).

3. Does any justice engage with whether Trump committed insurrection?

Follow live at #SCOTUSBlog https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/03/announcement-of-opinions-for-monday-march-4/

#law #lawfedi #scotus #supremecourt

A law faculty member asks "How would you advise us to be informed given the loss of so many local newspapers?" Greenhouse suggests people follow #SCOTUSblog (I think the faculty member was asking about keeping up with our own local news though.) #SCOTUS #DefendingDemocracy

A New Supreme Court Case Could Make It Harder to Tax the Superrich
SCOTUS just agreed to hear a case designed to preemptively block a wealth tax — another potentially lucrative gift for the conservative justices’ billionaire benefactors

Moore v. United States, is tailored to try to block Democrats’ promised agenda by defining what can — and cannot — count as taxable “income” under the Constitution.

Moore v. United States: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/moore-v-united-states-3/

#SCOTUS #neoliberalism #WealthTax #SCOTUSblog

Interesting. #scotus tells #alabama not to #Gerrymander based on the color of skin, and in the next sentence tells Alabama to gerrymander based on the color of skin.

Martin Luther King Jr.’s Dream is unfortunately now really and truly dead.
#scotusruling #scotusblog
#gerrymandering #gerrymandered
#mlk