Posts

Supreme Court Sides With Businesses in Overtime, Minimum Wage Case

/1 Comment/in , /by

The Supreme Court made it easier for some businesses to prove employees are exempt from overtime and minimum wage standards in a ruling Wednesday that set a relatively low bar for the firms.

Lower courts had split on the burden of proof for the companies.

Some judges said the businesses had to have “clear and convincing evidence” that someone was exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime and wage rules. Other judges said the businesses needed to have only a “preponderance” of the evidence in their favor — a lower level of proof.

The justices said the law requires only that lower level of proof.

“We conclude that the default preponderance standard governs when an employer seeks to prove that an employee is exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act,” Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote for the court. (Read more from “Supreme Court Sides With Businesses in Overtime, Minimum Wage Case” HERE)

Photo credit: Flickr

Chief Justice Roberts Warns of Four Areas of Concern in End of Year Report

/1 Comment/in , /by

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on Tuesday addressed four areas of “illegitimate activity” that he said threaten the independence of judges: violence, intimidation, disinformation and threats to defy lawfully entered judgments.

The conservative justice expressed his concerns in the Supreme Court’s annual report.

The report was released following a tumultuous year in which the nation’s courts were unusually entangled in a tightly contested presidential race. During this time, then-Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, who faced a host of criminal charges that he denied, repeatedly attacked the integrity of the judicial system. . .

Roberts wrote in the end of year report: “Attempts to intimidate judges for their rulings in cases are inappropriate and should be vigorously opposed.” He added that while public officials have the right to criticize rulings, they should also be aware that their statements can “prompt dangerous reactions by others.”

“Of course, the courts are no more infallible than any other branch,” Roberts wrote. “In hindsight, some judicial decisions were wrong, sometimes egregiously wrong. And it was right of critics to say so. In a democracy—especially in one like ours, with robust First Amendment protections—criticism comes with the territory. It can be healthy.” (Read more from “Chief Justice Roberts Warns of Four Areas of Concern in End of Year Report” HERE)

James Ho’s Post-Election Remarks Fuel Supreme Court Speculation

/7 Comments/in , /by

Fifth Circuit Judge James Ho’s public remarks since Election Day have rekindled talk of a possible audition for the Supreme Court.

In the days after President-elect Donald Trump won back the White House, Ho referenced a gaffe by President Joe Biden against Trump supporters, publicly changed his position on birthright citizenship in a way that aligns with the Trump agenda, and appeared on a popular legal podcast from a conservative news outlet.

“For judges who are ambitious, it’s a way to put your name on the Supreme Court shortlist,” Kenneth Manning, a professor at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth who researches judges, said of Ho’s recent comments. “I don’t think there are many people who doubt that Ho’s maneuvers here are probably an attempt to do that.” . . .

There are no current vacancies on the Supreme Court, and none of the justices have publicly indicated plans to step down. But Ho, 51, a former law clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas who was on a past shortlist for a Trump Supreme Court pick, has both the conservative resume and academic credentials that could see him help cement the high court’s conservative supermajority for the coming decades.

One of his former law clerks threw cold water on the idea that Ho has a Supreme Court seat in mind. (Read more from “James Ho’s Post-Election Remarks Fuel Supreme Court Speculation” HERE)

Couple Began ‘Transitioning’ Their Child as 1-Year-Old Boy

/0 Comments/in , /by

After the Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in U.S. v Skrmetti, the case that will determine whether states may ban transgender medical procedures for kids, one mother told The Daily Signal that her child began to transition as a baby.

“She knew since birth,” Michelle Callahan-DuMont said of her 10-year-old, a biological male who says he identifies as a transgender female and goes by the name “Violet.” . . .

CNN interviewed the same family about having a so-called transgender child. What the left-leaning news outlet didn’t mention is that Callahan-DuMont and her husband began to “transition” Violet when he was toddler age, over 1 year old.

“Violet told us when she was 1 and a half,” Callahan-DuMont told The Daily Signal. “She’s been telling us since she could speak.”

In the interview with CNN correspondent Lucy Kafanov that aired, Violet said he is afraid he will be murdered on the street for identifying as transgender. (Read more from “Couple Began ‘Transitioning’ Their Child as 1-Year-Old Boy” HERE)

Photo credit: Flickr

T-Shirt With Factual Message Gets Boy Suspended: Supreme Court Now Involved

/0 Comments/in , , /by

A coalition of many groups, organizations and states is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a school’s decision to apply its own political ideology to students’ speech, and censor by ejecting from class those with other perspectives.

It’s all over a student who wore a T-shirt stating “There are only two genders,” and was tossed from his school. Then he tried to wear one that said “There are CENSORED genders” and he got the same result. . .

One of the supporting briefs, filed by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, pointed out that the lower courts couldn’t even agree on why they were attacking the student’s rights.

“The district court denied L.M.’s request for a preliminary injunction and later entered final judgment against him, reasoning that the shirt constituted an impermissible ‘invasion of the rights of others’… The First Circuit affirmed on alternative grounds, adopting a novel test that would allow schools to censor speech that neither targets nor harasses a specific student,” the brief charges.

That precedent, FIRE said, allows schools to target “passive, silently expressed speech that targets no student in particular if the student’s expression (1) is reasonably interpreted to demean one of those characteristics of personal identity, given the common understanding that such characteristics are unalterable or otherwise deeply rooted and that demeaning them strikes a person at the core of his being, and (2) the demeaning message is reasonably forecasted to poison the educational atmosphere due to its serious negative psychological impact on students with the demeaned characteristic and thereby lead to symptoms of a sick school – symptoms therefore of substantial disruption.” (Read more from “T-Shirt With Factual Message Gets Boy Suspended: Supreme Court Now Involved” HERE)

Photo credit: Flickr

Nevada Supreme Court Handed down a Devastating Ruling on Mail-in Ballots and Election Integrity

/0 Comments/in , , /by

This presidential election will likely come down to key swing states, and could very well be a close and competitive race. If that’s indeed the case, though, we might not know the results until several days after Election Day. Monday’s ruling from the Nevada Supreme Court on accepting mail-in ballots without a postmark and after the election, not only doesn’t help the timeline, it also strikes a devastating blow to election integrity for years to come.

“By removing the necessity for any proof that a ballot has passed through the postal service and thereby negating a critical ballot security measure, the Nevada Supreme Court has opened wide the doors to rampant ballot fraud,” streiff aptly wrote at our sister site of RedState. He also included a copy of the court’s opinion.

As The Hill reported on Monday about the decision:

Nevada’s Supreme Court affirmed a lower court decision Monday allowing mail ballots to be counted if they arrive without a postmark up to three days after the Nov. 5 election.

A majority of the high court ruled the state law requiring mail-in ballots to be counted even if the postmark “cannot be determined” applied to ballots without any postmark, as well as ballots whose postmarks are illegible.

…

“If a voter properly and timely casts their vote by mailing their ballot before or on the day of the election, and through a post office omission the ballot is not postmarked, it would go against public policy to discount that properly cast vote,” Nevada’s majority opinion read.

…

“Requiring ballots to be postmarked on or before election day is a critical election integrity safeguard that ensures ballots mailed after election day are not counted,” said RNC Spokesperson Claire Zunk. “It is also a requirement of Nevada law. By allowing Nevada officials to ignore the law’s postmark requirement, the state’s highest court has undermined the integrity of Nevada’s elections.”

(Read more from “Nevada Supreme Court Handed down a Devastating Ruling on Mail-in Ballots and Election Integrity” HERE)

Arizona Supreme Court Rules 98,000 People Whose Citizenship Is Unconfirmed Can Vote in Pivotal Election

/1 Comment/in , /by

Nearly 98,000 people whose U.S. citizenship has not been confirmed will be allowed to vote in the upcoming state and local elections, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Friday.

The ruling came after a “coding oversight” in state software prompted the swing state’s Democratic Secretary of State Adrian Fontes to insist that he would send out ballots to those affected anyway.

The database error called into question the citizenship status of 100,000 registered Arizona voters, affecting individuals who obtained their driver’s licenses before October 1996, and subsequently received duplicates before registering to vote after 2004.

Fontes and Stephen Richer, the Republican Maricopa County recorder, disagreed on what status the voters should hold following the “coding oversight.”

“This was discovered not because somebody was voting illegally and not because somebody was attempting to vote illegally, as far as we can tell,” Fontes said at a Tuesday afternoon news conference. “And this was basic voter roll maintenance, and it showed us that there is this issue.” (Read more from “Arizona Supreme Court Rules 98,000 People Whose Citizenship Is Unconfirmed Can Vote in Pivotal Election” HERE)

Key Swing State Supreme Court Rules Mail-in Ballots With Flawed Dates Can Be Tossed

/1 Comment/in , /by

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a ruling Friday that will allow mail-in ballots without accurate dates on their return envelopes to be thrown out.

In late August, a Pennsylvania state court halted the enforcement of requiring voters to include accurate, handwritten dates on submitted mail-in ballots, according to CBS News. However, the state’s Supreme Court, in a 4-3 vote, has now reinstated the requirement as two Democrats on the high court joined both Republicans to vacate the Commonwealth Court decision, according to the court documents.

Within the court filing, Justices Kevin Dougherty, Sallie Updyke Mundy, Kevin Brobson and Daniel McCaffery stated the decision was made after the Commonwealth Court failed to “name the county boards of elections of all 67 counties,” calling out Secretary of the Commonwealth Al Schmidt for not meeting the requirements “to invoke the Commonwealth Court’s original jurisdiction.”

With the reversal of the decision, over 10,000 ballots could potentially be tossed within the key swing state due to expected discrepancies on the envelopes regarding the date, according to The Associated Press. Justice David Wecht, within his dissent, stated, “A prompt and definitive ruling on the constitutional question presented in this appeal is of paramount public importance inasmuch as it will affect the counting of ballots in the upcoming general election.”

In November 2022, the state’s Supreme Court unanimously ruled that mail-in or absentee ballots lacking a date on their return envelopes are invalid, prior to the midterm elections at the time. (Read more from “Key Swing State Supreme Court Rules Mail-in Ballots With Flawed Dates Can Be Tossed” HERE)

Parents Ask Supreme Court To Take Up Case Challenging School Policy Pushing ‘Gender,’ ‘Sexuality’ Books On Kids

/0 Comments/in , /by

A group of Christian, Muslim and Jewish parents in Maryland petitioned the Supreme Court Thursday to ask it to take up a case regarding school board policies that keep parents in the dark on books with themes about “gender” and “sexuality” being taught to children.

The case originates from the Montgomery County Board of Education (BOE) instituting an “inclusive” storybook program in 2022 for students in grades pre-K through fifth, initially informing parents of when they would be read until changing that policy in March 2023, also restricting parents’ ability to opt their kids out, according to a press release from the Becket Fund, a non-profit law firm representing the parents. Shortly after the Montgomery BOE announced the change in policy, the group of parents filed a lawsuit against the BOE in May 2023 and lost, and were denied again in May 2024 when they appealed to the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The storybooks include topics on gender transitioning, pride parades and preferred pronouns, according to the press release. One book includes terms like “intersex flag” and “drag queen.”

One book mentioned in the suit, called “Jacob’s Room to Choose,” includes two transgender children and a teacher who use a game to convince their class to be “supportive of gender-free bathrooms,” court document states. Another book titled “Pride Puppy,” directed at three and four-year-olds, describes a pride parade and has students identify images including “leather” and “underwear.”

“Most fundamentally, it violates the First Amendment, which guarantees the right of parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children,” Will Haun, an attorney for the Becket Fund, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

(Read more from “Parents Ask Supreme Court to Take up Case Challenging School Policy Pushing ‘Gender,’ ‘Sexuality’ Books on Kids” HERE)

Americans Cast Judgment on Democrats’ Plan to Completely Change the Supreme Court

/3 Comments/in , /by

A new nationwide survey highlighted in a Wall Street Journal opinion editorial found that most Americans don’t support sweeping changes to the Supreme Court, despite President Biden’s last-minute push for such a measure.

The WSJ cited a Mason-Dixon Polling & Strategy survey that found “support for the separation of powers just as many of the speakers at this week’s Democratic National Convention seek to undermine it.”

President Biden, after abruptly leaving the presidential race a month ago, endorsed legislation that would impose term limits for justices, among other things, that would drastically alter the makeup of the high court. His plan is also of questionable constitutionality.

According to the Journal, the Mason-Dixon poll found that after asking likely voters if they “support or oppose amending the U.S. Constitution to change the structure of the U.S. Supreme Court,” 52% of them oppose the idea, while 41% of likely voters support the idea of amending the constitution to change the court’s structure.

Noting that for “over 150 years, the United States Supreme Court has had nine justices” and that court-packing “is generally defined as increasing the number of Supreme Court seats, primarily to alter the ideological balance of the court,” the poll asked respondents if they agree with “court-packing.” (Read more from “Americans Cast Judgment on Democrats’ Plan to Completely Change the Supreme Court” HERE)

Photo credit: Flickr