Search

The Supreme Court has been inundated with emergency appeals during its summer break, particularly from the energy industry and Republican-led states seeking to block new Clean Air Act standards. These appeals are a result of the court's willingness to intervene early in lower-court litigation through emergency orders, often at the request of conservative interests. The court's emergency docket has included cases on major policy questions such as student-loan relief, sex-discrimination rules, and voter-registration procedures. The recent dominant issue on the emergency docket has been air pollution, with industry and its political allies challenging several regulations published by the Environmental Protection Agency. Critics question the need for high-court intervention so soon, as most of the rules won't take effect for years. The Supreme Court's early intervention has been a subject of debate, with some justices expressing concern that it has become too routine, while others argue that it can be justified due to the lengthy litigation process. The court still denies many emergency applications, and the challengers in the air-pollution cases argue that the EPA lacks authority over policies that would force a generational shift in technology. [Extracted from the article]

The article focuses on the Supreme Court's decision to deny the Biden administration's request to enforce new regulations protecting transgender students. Topics include the continuation of lower-court injunctions blocking the rules, the administration's failure to justify immediate intervention, and the ongoing legal battle between Republican-led states and the administration over transgender student protections.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin is facing legal objections and political pushback for revoking a plea deal to close the case against accused Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and two co-defendants. The plea deal would have forsworn seeking the death penalty in exchange for guilty pleas and life sentences. Austin's intervention is being reviewed by a Guantanamo judge, who will determine if he had the legal power to revoke the plea bargains. The detainees' attorneys argue that the government has not met the conditions to back out of the deal, and defense lawyers are seeking discovery orders to investigate whether Austin's intervention was politically motivated. Senator Dick Durbin has asked Austin to reconsider his decision, stating that a fair trial in federal courts would be the best path to justice. The prosecution faces hurdles in obtaining death verdicts due to the abuse inflicted on the detainees by CIA interrogators. The government's severe misconduct could lead to removing the death penalty from consideration. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis had previously delayed an agreement on plea bargains, and Austin's decision is being supported by his predecessors. [Extracted from the article]

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has revoked plea agreements for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and two other Guantanamo detainees accused of orchestrating the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The plea deal, which would have kept the defendants in prison for life in exchange for guilty pleas, was canceled after facing criticism from Republicans who accused the Biden administration of coddling terrorists. The decision to withdraw the agreements has left the cases in limbo and has sparked debate among families of the victims, with some supporting the death penalty and others opposing it. The move by Austin has raised questions about his authority to intervene in a judicial proceeding. [Extracted from the article]

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ordered Israel to cease military operations in Rafah, a city in the Gaza Strip, to prevent harm to the Palestinian population. The ICJ's ruling comes after the International Criminal Court (ICC) announced its intention to charge Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, along with three Hamas leaders, with war crimes. Israel has denounced the accusations and stated that its military operations are aimed at destroying Hamas and rescuing hostages. The ICJ's orders are binding, but it lacks the means to enforce them. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court has approved a white-dominated congressional district in South Carolina, overturning a lower court's ruling that found the district was designed to diminish the political power of Black voters. The decision is seen as a victory for the Republican Party and incumbent Representative Nancy Mace. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the conservative majority, stated that plaintiffs must provide extraordinary evidence of racial bias in cases where race and party preference are closely linked. Justice Elena Kagan dissented, arguing that the court's decision allows legislators to use race as a proxy to achieve partisan goals and suppress the electoral influence of minority voters. [Extracted from the article]

The International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor, Karim Khan, has announced his intention to seek arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. This decision came as a surprise to Israeli government officials who were preparing for a week of meetings with the ICC team to discuss Israel's conduct during the war in Gaza. The ICC prosecutor also plans to seek arrest warrants for Hamas leaders Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Deif, and Ismail Haniyeh. The United States and Israeli officials have criticized the ICC's decision, questioning its legitimacy and credibility. [Extracted from the article]

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has announced its intention to seek charges against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the Gaza war. This move has led to a collapse in U.S. support for the ICC, which had previously grown due to its investigation into Ukraine. Senators Lindsey Graham and Chris Coons, who had previously supported the ICC, joined President Biden in condemning the prosecutor's decision. The charges against Israeli leaders have raised concerns about the ICC's prospects with the U.S. and the potential for prolonging the conflict. [Extracted from the article]

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a speech at a regional conference of judges and lawyers in Austin, Texas, expressed his belief that the Supreme Court should handle a larger workload of 75 cases per term, compared to the current average of 60 cases. He also discussed the court's practice of deciding consequential matters on an emergency basis without full briefing or consideration by lower courts, known as the "shadow docket." Kavanaugh defended the court's actions, stating that sometimes it is necessary to intervene in ongoing litigation to address important questions. He also emphasized the importance of providing clear rules for lower courts and litigants to follow, even if it means sacrificing complete consensus among the justices. [Extracted from the article]

A group of federal judges appointed by former President Donald Trump have announced their intention to blackball graduates of Columbia University due to their perceived inadequate response to student protests and academic-integrity issues. In a letter to Columbia University President Minouche Shafik, the judges criticized the school for being an "incubator of bigotry" with rampant antisemitism and a lack of diverse perspectives. This move follows similar actions by conservative judges against Yale and Stanford University law school graduates. Some legal professionals have questioned the wisdom of blacklisting specific institutions, arguing that hiring decisions should be based on individual qualifications and conduct rather than the institution named on their diploma. [Extracted from the article]

Former President Donald Trump's appointments to the Supreme Court have shaped a conservative supermajority that has delivered significant victories for his agenda, including the elimination of abortion rights and affirmative action. However, the court has not always ruled in Trump's favor when it comes to his personal interests, leading to frustration on his part. The court is now considering whether Trump must stand trial on federal charges related to his attempts to overturn the 2020 election. This case holds high stakes for both Trump and the court itself, as it navigates its Trump docket and seeks to maintain public confidence in the institution. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court heard arguments on an Idaho abortion case that raises questions about the responsibilities of doctors when pregnant patients are experiencing a health crisis. Idaho has a law that only permits abortions to save a woman's life, while the Biden administration argues that doctors can provide abortions they deem medically necessary under a federal law governing emergency care. The justices grappled with the scope of permissible medical treatments and whether states can deny patients care that the medical profession considers necessary. This case is one of two abortion matters currently being considered by the Supreme Court. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on the limits of vagrancy laws and their enforcement against homeless individuals. A federal appeals court in San Francisco has deemed such measures unconstitutional when applied to those with nowhere else to go, leading to an appeal supported by cities facing housing crises, including Los Angeles, Portland, and San Francisco. The case originated in Grants Pass, Oregon, where officials were found to have violated the rights of involuntarily homeless people by outlawing camping on public property or in vehicles when no shelter beds were available. The case has divided progressives, with some arguing that criminal penalties should not be used to drive the marginalized outside city limits. The Biden administration is urging the Supreme Court to scale back the Ninth Circuit's decision, while also emphasizing the importance of providing housing and social services to address homelessness. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court has ruled that workers can bring claims challenging job transfers as discriminatory, even if their pay or rank remains the same. The decision came in response to a lawsuit by a female police sergeant in St. Louis who claimed she was unlawfully transferred to a less prestigious position because of her gender. The court's ruling makes it easier for employees to bring discrimination claims and is part of a series of recent high-court rulings that have strengthened worker protections under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The decision is expected to result in more charges of discrimination being filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court allowed Texas to begin arresting and deporting noncitizens on its own, but another court later blocked these efforts. The legal showdown between Texas and the Biden administration has led to a rapidly shifting landscape regarding immigration rules at the southern U.S. border. The Texas law, known as SB 4, makes illegal border crossing a state crime and allows state officials to conduct arrests and deportations. The Supreme Court's action was not a final decision on the law's constitutionality, and further court proceedings are expected. The enforcement of SB 4 could have a significant impact on the border, raising questions about the rights of migrants and the acceptance of deportees by Mexico. [Extracted from the article]

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for two Russian commanders, Lt. Gen. Sergei Ivanovich Kobylash and Adm. Viktor Nikolayevich Sokolov, accusing them of targeting Ukraine's power grid during Russia's invasion. The ICC, based in The Hague, is an independent tribunal established to hold military and civilian leaders accountable for breaches of humanitarian law. The ICC has open investigations in several countries, including Libya, Mali, Myanmar, Uganda, Venezuela, and the Palestinian territories. While there is little chance that Moscow will consider the warrants valid or that the suspects will surrender, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky welcomed the ICC's action. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that states cannot reject presidential candidates based on their involvement in rebellion or insurrection against the U.S. This decision restored Donald Trump's name to Colorado's ballot and ended similar challenges to his candidacy in other states. The court stated that allowing state-by-state determinations of a candidate's eligibility could lead to a chaotic patchwork of outcomes that would disrupt a national election. While all nine justices agreed that Trump should appear on the ballot, four of them expressed concerns about limiting ways to enforce the insurrection clause. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court is considering a ban on bump-stock firearm devices, which allow semiautomatic rifles to fire with the speed and lethality of military arms. The Trump administration classified bump stocks as illegal machine guns after a mass shooting in Las Vegas in 2017, but a federal appeals court later ruled that they fell outside the legal definition of a machine gun. The Supreme Court appeared sympathetic to the government's argument that bump stocks should be illegal under existing laws. A decision in the case is expected before July. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court is set to hear two cases involving clashes between social media giants like Meta and Google and the states of Texas and Florida over legislation that limits the platforms' ability to moderate users' posts. The laws passed by Texas and Florida require social media platforms to post almost everything users have to say and restrict their ability to decide what content can be posted. Tech companies argue that these laws interfere with their speech rights and would force them to promote harmful material. The Supreme Court's decision could have significant implications for free speech protections on the internet. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court has declined to hear a case involving Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Virginia, which sought to block the use of race-neutral admissions policies to increase Black and Hispanic enrollment. The court's decision allows school authorities to pursue integration measures without classifying individual students by race. The case was seen as a follow-on to the court's previous decision ending affirmative action in university admissions. Two conservative justices dissented from the decision. The school board revised TJ's admissions criteria to diversify the student body after the nationwide reckoning on race relations in 2020. The new system, which the board said was race neutral, ended the application fee and allocated most slots proportionally among the district's middle schools. A federal district judge agreed with Asian-American parents who alleged discrimination, but a divided federal appeals court found no violation of the Constitution's equal-protection guarantee. [Extracted from the article]

Former President Donald Trump has asked the Supreme Court to delay a ruling that denied him immunity in a federal case where he is accused of plotting to overturn the 2020 election results. Trump's lawyers argue that denying him immunity threatens the president's ability to function properly and campaign against President Biden. Two lower courts have already rejected Trump's immunity claim, stating that he is now a private citizen and should be treated as any other criminal defendant. Trump's latest submission comes in one of four cases where he is facing felony charges related to the 2020 election. [Extracted from the article]

Former President Donald Trump is appealing a decision that disqualified him from the Colorado ballot due to his involvement in the January 6th Capitol attack. The Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether a candidate for president can be disqualified for engaging in insurrection against the US. Norma Anderson, a former GOP majority leader of the Colorado Senate, is the lead plaintiff in the case and believes that Trump tried to overthrow an election. The Colorado GOP has no plans to comply with the ruling, and other plaintiffs in the case have faced criticism and lost friendships for joining the lawsuit. If the Supreme Court rejects Trump's appeal, he could be stripped from the ballot across the country. Trump is facing multiple legal challenges as he attempts a White House return, including criminal trials and civil actions. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court is likely to reject an attempt to remove Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot, as justices across the ideological spectrum suggested that Congress, not individual states, should set the standards for disqualifying a presidential candidate for engaging in insurrection. Colorado's Supreme Court had barred Trump from the state's presidential ballot after finding that he engaged in insurrection by inciting his followers to attack the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Trump, similar efforts in other states would likely be extinguished. [Extracted from the article]

Alabama executed inmate Kenneth Eugene Smith using nitrogen hypoxia, making it the first U.S. state to carry out this method of execution. Nitrogen hypoxia involves depriving the body of oxygen by forcing the inmate to inhale only nitrogen gas. Lethal injection, the primary form of execution in the U.S., has become more difficult to perform due to various challenges. Smith's execution took about 22 minutes, during which he appeared conscious and exhibited movement. The use of nitrogen hypoxia has drawn criticism, with experts warning of potential violations of human rights. [Extracted from the article]

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has declined to order Israel to cease military operations in Gaza but has required Israel to enable humanitarian aid to the civilian population and take measures to prevent the destruction of the Palestinian community. The ICJ's decision came after South Africa accused Israel of violating the Genocide Convention. The court's order calls for punishment of incitement to genocide, preservation of evidence of potential violations, and the release of hostages taken by Hamas. The ruling reflects the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine, recognizing Israel's right to self-defense while expressing concern about civilian casualties. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of Richard Glossip, a death-row inmate in Oklahoma who claims innocence. Glossip was convicted of a 1997 murder-for-hire, but his case has been marred by prosecutorial misconduct and other serious errors. This case is unusual because Oklahoma's Republican attorney general has joined Glossip in asking the Supreme Court to overturn the conviction, fearing that executing a prisoner on such shaky grounds could undermine confidence in capital punishment. Glossip's defense team is hopeful that the Supreme Court will grant him a fair trial. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court has granted the Biden administration's request to reinstate federal authority over the U.S.-Mexican border in Texas, allowing the U.S. Border Patrol to remove concertina wire that Texas officers had installed to deter migrants from crossing a 29-mile stretch of the Rio Grande. The court's decision was divided 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining liberal justices in the majority. Texas Governor Greg Abbott has defended the wire as an "effective deterrent" to illegal crossings, while the White House has criticized it as making the job of frontline personnel more difficult and dangerous. The conflict between Texas and the federal government over border control has escalated, with Texas taking aggressive steps to deter illegal migration and challenging the federal government's authority over international borders. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court is considering overturning the 1984 Chevron ruling, which business groups and conservative activists argue has given too much power to unelected executive-branch bureaucrats. The ruling directs federal judges to defer to an agency's interpretation of federal law when it is ambiguous, rather than interpreting the law themselves. The implications of overturning Chevron could limit federal agencies' ability to issue environmental, consumer, and workplace regulations. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups support overturning Chevron, while the AFL-CIO and consumer, environmental, and health organizations argue for leaving it intact. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether it is constitutional for municipalities to prohibit homeless people from camping in public spaces when they have nowhere else to go. The case involves civil ordinances in the small Oregon city of Grants Pass, which were found to violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The decision has had implications for homelessness policy in western cities, where officials say they have been prevented from clearing dangerous or unsanitary encampments. The Supreme Court could hear oral arguments as soon as April. [Extracted from the article]

Israel has rejected South Africa's accusation that it is committing genocide against Palestinians, arguing that it is unfair to compare its military response to Hamas attacks to Nazi Germany's extermination of Jews. The International Court of Justice held hearings on South Africa's petition, which seeks an immediate cease-fire in Gaza. Israel defended its military campaign, stating that it seeks to defend itself and minimize civilian casualties, while South Africa argued that Israel's response crossed a line. Germany also rejected the accusation of genocide against Israel. The court case has sparked debate and concern in Israel, with some worrying that it could distract from the atrocities committed by Hamas. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Idaho's challenge to federal regulations that require Medicare-funded hospitals to provide abortions in emergency situations. The court has also allowed Idaho to enforce its stricter rule that only allows abortions to prevent a woman's death. Lower courts have had differing opinions on whether the federal law pre-empts state restrictions on abortion. The case is expected to have oral arguments in April and a decision before July. This is the second major abortion case on the court's docket this term. [Extracted from the article]

Former President Donald Trump has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the decision by Colorado's highest court that removed him from the state's 2024 presidential primary ballot due to his involvement in the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. Trump argues that the events of January 6 were not an insurrection and that the 14th Amendment provision barring insurrectionists from holding public office does not apply to him. He also contends that it is up to Congress, not state courts, to determine if the conditions of the 14th Amendment are met. The Supreme Court is expected to hear Trump's appeal, which has divided state judges and officials. [Extracted from the article]

The Biden administration has asked the Supreme Court to reinstate federal authority over the border between Mexico and Texas. This comes after Texas officials won a lower court order blocking the U.S. Border Patrol from removing razor wire that was installed by Texas officers to deter migrants from crossing the Rio Grande. The conflict between Texas and the federal government over border enforcement has been escalating, with Texas challenging the federal government's sole authority over international borders. The federal government argues that Congress has given the Border Patrol extensive power to enforce immigration law within 25 miles of the border. [Extracted from the article]

Chief Justice John Roberts focused his year-end report on the promise and perils of artificial intelligence (AI) for the federal judiciary, avoiding discussion of ethical issues and upcoming election cases. Roberts acknowledged that the courts have been slow to adopt technological advances but emphasized the need to come to terms with AI. While AI has the potential to increase access to legal information, Roberts cautioned that it also risks invading privacy and dehumanizing the law. The report has been praised as an invitation to begin a dialogue between Congress and the judicial branch on AI use in the legal system. [Extracted from the article]

The U.S. Supreme Court may be faced with ruling on a presidential election for the second time in the 21st century. Former President Donald Trump, the leading candidate for the Republican nomination, was disqualified from the Colorado ballot due to his alleged involvement in a failed insurrection following his 2020 defeat. Trump plans to appeal, potentially forcing the Supreme Court to interpret the 14th Amendment provisions that were originally intended to prevent ex-Confederates from gaining power. While there are similarities to the court's 2000 decision in Bush v. Gore, there are also significant differences, such as the timing and nature of the cases. Regardless of the court's decision, its reputation is likely to suffer, as it did in 2000. The 2000 election set a pattern for subsequent elections, with close margins and disputes over voting procedures. The Florida case exposed flaws in the election system and raised questions about who has the final say in determining the outcome of a presidential election. Bush v. Gore remains a pivotal and disputed decision in the court's history. In contrast, people on both sides of the 2000 case agree that the Colorado insurrection decision requires Supreme Court review. The court needs to clarify how the insurrection clause applies to avoid inconsistent results across the states. The insurrection case involving Trump has the potential to shape the political landscape, but legal decisions have consequences. Some argue that the Supreme Court should quickly take up Trump's appeal and set aside the Colorado court's [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court has declined to expedite a decision on whether former President Donald Trump is immune from prosecution for his attempts to overturn the 2020 election. This decision increases the likelihood that Trump's trial on charges of interfering in the election will be delayed beyond its scheduled start date of March 4. The issue will now be handled by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Trump's legal troubles are expected to continue to impact his 2024 election campaign, and his lawyers argue that he is being targeted because he is standing up for his supporters. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court has announced that it will hear a case challenging federal regulations on the abortion pill mifepristone. The regulations, issued by the FDA since 2016, relaxed restrictions on the drug. A lower court invalidated these regulations, but they have remained in effect while the Supreme Court considered the Biden administration's appeal. The case has nationwide implications, as a loss for the administration could limit access to the medication even in states where abortion is legal. The case is expected to be argued in 2024, with a decision before July. [Extracted from the article]

Special counsel Jack Smith has asked the Supreme Court to expedite a judgment on whether former President Donald Trump is immune from prosecution for his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Smith wants the court to hear the case before a lower appeals court, which could potentially delay the trial scheduled for March. The Supreme Court has agreed to fast-track its consideration of the case and has directed Trump's lawyers to respond by December 20. Trump's lawyers oppose Smith's request for expedited review. [Extracted from the article]