Posts

Supreme Court Restores Trump’s Transgender Military Ban — for Now

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Trump administration to institute its ban on transgenders serving in the military.

In an order that all three liberal justices opposed, the high court approved an emergency petition from the Trump administration to nix a lower court injunction that blocked the ban from taking effect.

President Trump had signed an executive order Jan. 27 discharging service members who identify as transgender, a policy that was similar to one he implemented in his first administration that the Supreme Court upheld in 2019.

Former President Joe Biden later scrapped the transgender ban that the first Trump administration had put in place.

Seven transgender military service members and one aspiring service member sued the Trump administration over the latest ban and were backed by the National Center for Lesbian Rights as well as GLAD Law. (Read more from “Supreme Court Restores Trump’s Transgender Military Ban — for Now” HERE)

Supreme Court Blocks, for Now, New Deportations Under 18th Century Wartime Law

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Supreme Court on Saturday blocked, for now, the deportations of any Venezuelans held in northern Texas under an 18th century wartime law.

In a brief order, the court directed the Trump administration not to remove Venezuelans held in the Bluebonnet Detention Center “until further order of this court.” . . .

The high court acted in an emergency appeal from the American Civil Liberties Union contending that immigration authorities appeared to be moving to restart removals under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The Supreme Court had said earlier in April that deportations could proceed only if those about to be removed had a chance to argue their case in court and were given “a reasonable time” to contest their pending removals.

“We are deeply relieved that the Court has temporarily blocked the removals. These individuals were in imminent danger of spending the rest of their lives in a brutal Salvadoran prison without ever having had any due process,” ACLU lawyer Lee Gelernt said in an email.

On Friday, two federal judges refused to step in as lawyers for the men launched a desperate legal campaign to prevent their deportation, even as one judge said the case raised legitimate concerns. Early Saturday, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also refused to issue an order protecting the detainees from being deported. (Read more from “Supreme Court Blocks, for Now, New Deportations Under 18th Century Wartime Law” HERE)

Supreme Court Sides With Trump to Temporarily Allow DEI Cuts of $65 Million

/0 Comments/in , /by

The U.S. Supreme Court handed the Trump administration its first victory of the second term from the highest court of the land.

In a 5-4 ruling, the court temporarily allowed the administration to keep $65 million in federal funding cuts from Trump’s executive order against diversity, equity, and inclusion policies while litigation continues. Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the three liberal justices in dissent.

The lawsuit against the Trump administration was filed by eight states led by Democrats that objected to the president cutting millions of dollars’ worth of funding for teacher-training programs. The order overturns a ruling blocking the cuts from a federal judge in Massachusetts.

The court’s majority ruling said that the states had the wherewithal to continue the programs while the litigation continued.

“So if respondents ultimately prevail, they can recover any wrongfully withheld funds through suit in an appropriate forum,” the ruling said. (Read more from “Supreme Court Sides With Trump to Temporarily Allow DEI Cuts of $65 Million” HERE)

Supreme Court to Hear Case That Could Have Significant Ramifications for Federal Immunity

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of Curtrina Martin, a Georgia resident whose home was wrongly raided by the FBI.

The eventual ruling will determine whether federal agencies can be held civilly liable when their actions adversely affect American citizens.

Martin lived with her fiancé and seven-year-old son back in 2017 when the raid happened. The authorities were trying to apprehend a gang member who lived near the couple.

On an early morning in 2017, Martin and her then-fiance, Hilliard Toi Cliatt, were awoken by the FBI detonating a flash grenade in their home and ripping their door from its hinges. The agents then made their way to their bedroom and found the couple hiding in the closet, where they had retreated in fear; an officer dragged Cliatt out and handcuffed him, while another pointed his gun and screamed at Martin, who says she fell on a rack in the rapidly unfolding mayhem. Her 7-year-old son was in his room, and she says her mind went to a dark place.

“I don’t know if there is a proper word that I can use” to capture the fear she felt, Martin told me this summer.

The FBI would not find who they came for, because the suspect didn’t live there, nor did he have any relation to Martin or Cliatt. When Martin sued, the 11th Circuit not only gave immunity to Lawrence Guerra, the leader of the SWAT raid, but the judges also said her claims could not proceed under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), the legislation that allows people to bring various state torts against the federal government.

(Read more from “Supreme Court to Hear Case That Could Have Significant Ramifications for Federal Immunity” HERE)

Supreme Court Unanimously Upholds Forced Sale of TikTok From Chinese Parent Company

/0 Comments/in , /by

The US Supreme Court unanimously upheld a law Friday that would force TikTok’s sale from a Chinese state-owned firm, even as President Biden and President-elect Donald Trump have sought to block the divestment.

The nine justices ordered the qualified divestment by Jan. 19 of the California-based social media platform from Beijing-based ByteDance.

“There is no doubt that, for more than 170 million Americans, TikTok offers a distinctive and expansive outlet for expression, means of engagement, and source of community,” read the key portion of the unsigned opinion.

“But Congress has determined that divestiture is necessary to address its well-supported national security concerns regarding TikTok’s data collection practices and relationship with a foreign adversary,” the court said.

“For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the challenged provisions do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights.” (Read more from “Supreme Court Unanimously Upholds Forced Sale of TikTok From Chinese Parent Company” HERE)

Photo credit: Flickr

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