Posts

Supreme Court Keeps New Rules About Sex Discrimination in Education on Hold in Half the Country

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Supreme Court on Friday kept on hold in roughly half the country new regulations about sex discrimination in education, rejecting a Biden administration request.

The court voted 5-4, with conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch joining the three liberal justices in dissent.

At issue were protections for pregnant students and students who are parents, and the procedures schools must use in responding to sexual misconduct complaints.

The most noteworthy of the new regulations, involving protections for transgender students, were not part of the administration’s plea to the high court.

They too remain blocked in 25 states and hundreds of individual colleges and schools across the country because of lower court orders. (Read more from “Supreme Court Keeps New Rules About Sex Discrimination in Education on Hold in Half the Country” HERE)

Photo credit: Flickr

SCOTUS Blocks Challenge to Trump’s Hush Money Sentencing, Gag Order Until After Election

/0 Comments/in , /by

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected an effort to halt former and potentially future President Donald Trump’s sentencing in the hush money case, as well as lift the gag order imposed on him until after the November election. As CBS News reported, the effort, described as “a longshot bid” came from Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey.

According to the CBS News report:

The high court denied Missouri’s request to bring its case against New York, and dismissed a separate motion to pause Trump’s sentencing in an unsigned order. There were no noted dissents. Justices Clarence and Samuel Alito said they would have granted the state’s request to file a bill of complaint, but would not have granted the other relief Missouri sought.

…

[Trump] has vowed to appeal the conviction, and his sentencing, while initially set for July 11, was delayed to Sept. 18. The New York judge overseeing the case, Justice Juan Merchan, lifted part of the gag order in June, but Trump is still restricted from talking about prosecutors, court staff and their families.

Merchan is also set to decide by Sept. 6 whether to set aside Trump’s guilty verdict based on the Supreme Court’s ruling that he is entitled to immunity from federal prosecution for official acts taken while in the White House. Trump’s lawyers have argued that under the court’s decision, prosecutors shouldn’t have been allowed to offer evidence at trial of the former president’s official acts. Manhattan prosecutors disagree with their assertions.

(Read more from “SCOTUS Blocks Challenge to Trump’s Hush Money Sentencing, Gag Order Until After Election” HERE)

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Federal Judge Orders Release of John Strand From Jan. 6 Prison Term

/3 Comments/in , /by

John Strand, a former model and actor who went to the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 to protect Dr. Simone Gold of America’s Frontline Doctors, was ordered released from prison July 15 in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court decision stymieing use of a 20-year felony obstruction charge.

United States District Judge Christopher Cooper granted Strand’s second motion for release since February — just weeks after a Supreme Court ruling strictly limited the obstruction of an official proceeding charge leveled against Strand and 354 other Jan. 6 defendants.

Gold, Strand’s friend who served a 60-day prison sentence on a misdemeanor count of entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds, praised Strand’s integrity after learning of the release order.

“He was offered a single misdemeanor plea,” Gold said in an interview with Blaze News. “He said, ‘I’m going to walk into the fire.’ He walked into the fire. He never regretted it. I mean, he’s a full-on hero in an age when we need heroes.”

Strand, 41, of Naples, Fla., will have to finish his 12-month sentence on four Jan. 6 misdemeanor charges, which puts his release date on July 24. Strand was originally sentenced to 32 months in prison. (Read more from “Federal Judge Orders Release of John Strand From Jan. 6 Prison Term” HERE)

Supreme Court Rejects Purdue Pharma’s $6 Billion Opioid Settlement

/2 Comments/in , /by

The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected Purdue Pharma’s proposed $6 billion bankruptcy settlement. A 5-4 majority opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch sided with the Biden administration‘s argument that Purdue’s settlement is an abuse of bankruptcy protections meant for debtors in financial distress, not for the owners of the multibillion-dollar opioid company, the Sackler family, who withdrew $11 billion from Purdue before agreeing to contribute $6 billion to its opioid settlement.

The Sackler family’s plan to settle lawsuits and transform Purdue Pharma into a nonprofit organization dedicated to addiction treatment was initially approved by a bankruptcy judge in 2011. The U.S. Trustee Program, a Justice Department watchdog, intervened and claimed settlement terms required unanimous consent by the roughly 60,000 people who have filed personal injury claims, despite the plan’s approval by over 95% of the voting claimants.

After years of litigation, the Supreme Court in August temporarily barred the pharmaceutical from moving forward with bankruptcy proceedings and agreed to hear Biden administration’s challenge to the plan on the merits.

Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

The Sackler family’s plan to settle lawsuits and transform Purdue Pharma into a nonprofit organization dedicated to addiction treatment was initially approved by a bankruptcy judge in 2011. (Read more from “Supreme Court Rejects Purdue Pharma’s $6 Billion Opioid Settlement” HERE)

SCOTUS Hands Down Huge Decision Affecting J6 Defendants

/1 Comment/in , /by

The Supreme Court has taken a judicial katana to a statute that federal prosecutors weaponized to go after those who participated in the January 6 incident. The question before the court was whether the “obstruction of an official proceeding” statute could be used in how the Justice Department weaponized it to go after hundreds of January 6 defendants. As SCOTUS Blog covered in April, the plaintiff, Joseph Fischer, a former police officer, argued that the statute only pertained to evidence tampering in a congressional investigation. During oral arguments, justices weren’t convinced by the government’s interpretation, arguing that it could cast too much of a net.

In a 6-3 opinion, the Supreme Court handed down a massive blow to federal prosecutors, concluding, per SCOTUS Blog’s Amy Howe, that for the statute to be used in this way, there must be evidence to the fact that “the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records.” In a blow to the narrative that the Supreme Court is rogue and right-wing, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the majority. Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissented (via SCOTUS Blog):

The court holds that to prove a violation of the law, the government must show that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so.

The court reverses the D.C. Circuit, which had adopted a broader reading of the law to allow the charges against Fischer to go forward. The case now goes back to the D.C. Circuit — which, the court says, can assess whether the indictment can still stand in light of this new and narrower interpretation.

Justice Jackson, who joined the majority opinion, also has a concurring opinion. She stresses that despite “the shocking circumstances involved in this case,” the “Court’s task is to determine what conduct is proscribed by the criminal statute that has been invoked as the basis for the obstruction charge at issue here.”

(Read more from “SCOTUS Hands Down Huge Decision Affecting J6 Defendants” HERE)

Photo credit: Flickr

Establishment Media Fumbles Supreme Court’s Decision on Idaho Abortion Law

/1 Comment/in , /by

The establishment media prematurely reported a Supreme Court order dismissing a crucial case involving Idaho’s pro-life law and the Biden administration’s controversial ER abortion mandate.

The Biden administration’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a regulation under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), mandating that hospitals provide abortions if deemed necessary to stabilize a pregnant woman’s medical emergency, overriding state laws. Idaho’s Defense of Life Act, a pro-life law, stood in direct opposition to this mandate.

The administration’s aggressive push led to a federal district court in Idaho issuing a preliminary injunction in favor of HHS. Idaho subsequently appealed to the Ninth Circuit. In an uncommon move, the Supreme Court granted “cert before judgment,” agreeing to review the case before the appellate court’s decision.

The decision was accompanied by several opinions, reflecting the deep divisions within the court:

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argued against dismissal, advocating for the court to strike down Idaho’s pro-life law in favor of the Biden administration’s abortion mandate.

Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, expressed their intent to rule that the EMTALA regulation preempts Idaho law but agreed with the dismissal for procedural reasons.

Justice Samuel Alito, supported in part by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, opposed the dismissal, favoring Idaho’s pro-life law and criticizing the court’s reluctance to address the issue head-on.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, formed the deciding block, aligning with the dismissal but leaving the broader legal questions unresolved.

The establishment media’s premature and inaccurate reporting on the Supreme Court’s decision underscores a troubling trend of misinforming the public on crucial issues. By jumping the gun, they not only failed to provide a clear picture of the court’s decision but also contributed to the confusion surrounding an already contentious issue.

The establishment media’s premature reporting on the Supreme Court’s decision regarding Idaho’s pro-life law and the Biden administration’s abortion mandate is a glaring example of media incompetence and bias.

The Fight Against Child Mutilation Makes It to the Supreme Court

/1 Comment/in , /by

Maybe you’ve heard the saying, “The purpose of a system is what it does.” It’s a phrase that was coined by a professor named Stafford Beer as a way of helping people understand complex systems. It was originally about cybernetics, but it’s increasingly being used in the context of American politics.

That’s because you’ll often hear convoluted explanations to justify various policies, when all you really have to do is look at the end result that those policies are producing. The benefit of Beer’s approach is that, at the risk of maybe oversimplifying some things, it short-circuits all the rationalization and B.S. that we’re all used to hearing. And if there’s one skill that the politicians and academics have perfected — whether they’re talking about immigration or criminal justice reform or anything else — it’s drowning us in doublespeak so that we don’t look at the obviously evil and destructive results of their policies. Sometimes things really aren’t that complicated. Sometimes you don’t need experts and studies to decide on a course of action.

That’s especially true in the case of so-called “transgender medical care” for children, which really means injecting children with sterilizing cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers that can cause early-onset osteoporosis. In some cases, it also means amputating body parts from children — so-called “top surgery” for minors is legal in many states, and used to be legal in many more. No other civilization throughout human history has done anything like this, and for good reason. There’s no need to analyze the “intent” of people who promote a practice like this. The purpose of a system is what it does. The end result of their policy is that children are being mutilated. No further discussion is necessary.

Of course, this isn’t how our courts work. They generally take their time when it comes to ruling on major policy issues — if they ever decide to weigh in all. But eventually, on the most important issues, things come to a head. The various appellate courts disagree, creating a “circuit split,” and ultimately the Supreme Court feels compelled to step in. That’s happening now in the area of so-called “trans medicine.” And it brings us to what could very well be the most significant Supreme Court case since Dobbs. This could be a long overdue decision — and it’s worth a close look, especially since the ruling could come down in a matter of months.

(Read more from “The Fight Against Child Mutilation Makes It to the Supreme Court” HERE)

Today’s String of Supreme Court Decisions Blew Up Another Liberal Narrative (Again)

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The Supreme Court has not yet decided on the presidential immunity case involving former President Donald Trump, which could wreck the pending trials from Special Counsel Jack Smith on January 6 and classified document indictments. At the same time, the string of decisions today did unravel another trite liberal talking regarding our third branch of government: it’s a rogue, right-wing machine that’s out to destroy America.

The three decisions today obliterated that narrative. There were no 5-4 decisions, and some concurring and dissenting opinions were—wait for it—made up of diverse company. Law professor Jonathan Turley had a lengthy Twitter thread about today’s rulings:

..We have the first case. It is Moore!

…Another shattering of the narrative of a hopelessly ideologically divided court. 7-2 decision. This is the tax case that I thought we might get today. It addresses the scope of the taxation powers.

…Court rules that taxpayers who own shares in foreign corporations can be constitutionally required to pay a one-time tax on their share of the corporation’s earnings…In his dissent, Thomas notes that the Court avoided the “wealth tax” issue with a biting couple lines: “Even as the majority admits to reasoning from fiscal consequences, it apparently believes that a generous application of dicta will guard against unconstitutional taxes in the future. The majority’s analysis begins with a list of nonexistent taxes that the Court does not today bless, including a wealth tax.”…

[…]

..We have the second opinion. It is CHIAVERINI ET AL. v. CITY OF NAPOLEON, OHIO, ET, a Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution case.

…This is a Justice Kagan decision that holds “the presence of probable cause for one charge in a criminal proceeding does not categorically defeat a Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim relating to another, baseless charge.”…

…Once again, the critics of the Supreme Court will be disappointed with the diverse majority of Roberts, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joining Kagan in the 6-3 decision…

…We have the third decision. It is Diaz v. US and authored by Thomas. Justice Gorsuch joins Sotomayor and Kagan in dissent.

The court holds that an expert testifying about how ‘most people” have a particular mental state is not an opinion about the defendant and therefore does not violate federal evidentiary rules.

(Read more from “Today’s String of Supreme Court Decisions Blew Up Another Liberal Narrative (Again)” HERE)

Supreme Court Finds No First Amendment Violation in Denying ‘Trump Too Small’ Trademark

/2 Comments/in , /by

The Supreme Court held Thursday that the United States Patent & Trademark Office’s (USPTO) denial of a trademark for the phrase “Trump too small” did not violate the First Amendment.

T-shirt maker Steve Elster brought the lawsuit to challenge the USPTO’s denial of trademark protections for the phrase under the Lanham Act, a law that restricts the registration of trademarks that include the name of a “living individual.” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the court’s opinion that the “names clause” of the law “does not facially discriminate against any viewpoint” and has “deep roots” in historical tradition.

“No matter the message a registrant wants to convey, the names clause prohibits marks that use another person’s name without consent,” Thomas wrote.

The phrase is a nod to Republican Florida Sen. Marco Rubio’s crude joke about Trump’s “small hands” during a 2016 presidential debate, which Elster explained in court documents he adopted to express “that some features of President Trump and his policies are diminutive.”

“The Lanham Act’s names clause has deep roots in our legal tradition,” Thomas continued. “Our courts have long recognized that trademarks containing names may be restricted. And, these name restrictions served established principles. This history and tradition is sufficient to conclude that the names clause—a content-based, but viewpoint-neutral, trademark restriction—is compatible with the First Amendment.” (Read more from “Supreme Court Finds No First Amendment Violation in Denying ‘Trump Too Small’ Trademark” HERE)

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Supreme Court Poised to Agree With Trump: Former Presidents Are Immune From Some Prosecutions

/5 Comments/in , , /by

By Breitbart. A majority of Supreme Court justices sympathized with Donald Trump’s attorneys’ arguments that a president does enjoy some level of immunity that endures past the term of office.

The court heard oral arguments regarding if Trump is immune from prosecution on charges of attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election, as Special Counsel Jack Smith claims.

A federal trial court ruled in Smith’s favor that Trump is not immune from prosecution, but Smith’s prosecution in D.C. has been on hold until the Supreme Court weighs in, likely in late June.

Arguments revealed that a majority appears to agree that presidents do enjoy some scope of immunity after their term in office, but the ultimate question will be the establishment of a standard.

If the Court institutes a test, it would vacate (i.e., strike) the lower court decision that former presidents have no immunity, sending that case back to trial court. That court would then undergo a painstaking point-by-point analysis on each fact to determine if immunity exists. (Read more from “Supreme Court Poised to Agree With Trump: Former Presidents Are Immune From Some Prosecutions” HERE)

_______________________________________________

Supreme Court Struggles With Immunity for Presidents Over Official Acts

By Washington Times. Supreme Court justices clashed Thursday over former President Donald Trump’s claims of “absolute immunity” from prosecution for his official acts in the White House as they sorted through competing dangers of an unleashed president on the one hand or a crippled commander in chief on the other.

Justices seemed to agree that some presidential conduct is immune from prosecution, but they sparred over where to draw the line and what it would mean for presidents long after Mr. Trump’s case is decided.

“We’re writing a rule for the ages,” said Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, a Trump appointee.

The court’s liberal-leaning justices were the most skeptical of Mr. Trump’s claims.

“The founders did not put an immunity clause in the Constitution,” said Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee. “Not so surprising. They were reacting against a monarch who claimed to be above the law. Wasn’t the whole point the president was not a monarch, and the president was not supposed to be above the law?” (Read more from “Supreme Court Struggles With Immunity for Presidents Over Official Acts” HERE)

Photo credit: Flickr