Afleveringen
-
As of the latest updates, the US Supreme Court is gearing up for its March argument session, which is set to begin on March 24 and conclude on April 2. During this period, the justices will hear arguments in nine significant cases spread over six days.
One of the notable cases is *Louisiana v. Callais*, consolidated with *Robinson v. Callais*, scheduled for March 24. This case involves a challenge to a lower court's decision to strike down a congressional voting map that created a second majority-Black district in Louisiana.
Another important case is *EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining*, set for March 25, which addresses whether challenges to the EPA's denial of exemptions from the Clean Air Act’s Renewable Fuel Standards program must be litigated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. This is part of a broader scrutiny of EPA actions, as seen in *Oklahoma v. EPA*, also scheduled for March 25, which questions the EPA’s denial of states’ plans to implement national air quality standards.
The court will also hear *FCC v. Consumers’ Research* on March 26, a case that challenges a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit that invalidated parts of an FCC program aimed at improving internet and phone services in underserved areas. This case raises constitutional questions about the delegation of Congress’s power to the FCC.
Other significant cases include *Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission* on March 31, which examines whether Wisconsin violated the First Amendment by denying a tax exemption to a religious organization, and *Kerr v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic* on April 2, which involves a challenge to South Carolina’s decision to end Planned Parenthood’s participation in its Medicaid program.
In addition to these upcoming arguments, the Supreme Court has recently been involved in other notable legal disputes. For instance, the court turned down the Trump administration’s request to pause the briefing in several cases related to EPA regulations and agency actions, indicating that these cases will move forward as scheduled.
For now, these cases highlight the diverse and critical issues that the Supreme Court will be addressing in the coming weeks.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don’t forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis of Supreme Court news. -
In recent developments, the US Supreme Court has been involved in several significant events and decisions. One of the most notable recent rulings came on March 5, when the Supreme Court rebuffed the Trump administration's request to lift a lower-court order. This order required the government to quickly pay nearly $2 billion to contractors and aid groups for U.S.-backed foreign-aid projects. The court's 5-4 decision upheld the lower judge's order, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett siding with the liberal justices. This ruling is part of a broader legal fight over the president's power to halt spending on foreign aid programs despite congressional appropriation of the funds.
On the docket, several important cases are set for oral arguments in the coming months. For instance, the case of *Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond*, scheduled for oral argument on January 24, 2025, will address whether a state violates the Free Exercise Clause by excluding privately run religious schools from its charter-school program. Another significant case, *Oklahoma v. EPA*, set for oral argument on October 21, 2024, will determine whether EPA actions under the Clean Air Act can be challenged only in the D.C. Circuit.
Additionally, the Supreme Court is preparing to hear other critical cases, such as *United States v. Skrmetti*, which questions the constitutionality of Tennessee Senate Bill 1 regarding medical treatments for minors, and *Parrish v. United States*, which deals with the procedural requirements for filing appeals.
In terms of upcoming events, while there are no special sessions announced for the immediate future, the Supreme Court continues to manage its robust schedule of hearings and decisions.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and analysis on the US Supreme Court. -
Zijn er afleveringen die ontbreken?
-
In a significant development, the US Supreme Court has made a pivotal decision regarding the Trump administration's attempt to freeze nearly $2 billion in foreign aid funds. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the Trump administration must comply with a lower court order and pay out the nearly $2 billion in foreign assistance funds to nonprofit aid groups and contractors for work already completed.
This decision came after the Trump administration had issued an executive order to freeze these funds, citing the need to review and potentially cancel what they deemed as wasteful programs that did not align with the administration's foreign policy goals. However, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, a Biden appointee, issued a temporary restraining order requiring the administration to resume the payments, which the administration failed to comply with.
The Supreme Court's majority, which included Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining the three liberal justices, upheld Judge Ali's order. This ruling mandates the government to honor its financial obligations for the completed work, despite the administration's arguments that the deadline set by the lower court was not feasible and that the order intruded on the executive branch's prerogatives in foreign affairs.
Justice Samuel Alito, in a strong dissent joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, expressed his astonishment at the majority's decision. Alito argued that a single district court judge should not have the power to compel the government to pay out such a large sum of taxpayer dollars, labeling it an act of "judicial hubris."
The impact of this decision is substantial, as many foreign aid groups and contractors had been on the brink of bankruptcy due to the frozen funds. These organizations have been forced to cut services and lay off thousands of workers. The ruling, while a short-term victory for these groups, does not resolve the broader issue, as the court left open the possibility of further legal battles over the administration's broader efforts to reshape foreign aid policies.
Judge Ali is set to hold a hearing to consider a more lasting preliminary injunction against the foreign aid freeze, indicating that this case is far from over. The Trump administration's actions, including the cancellation of thousands of USAID contracts and State Department grants, continue to be a point of contention, with the administration arguing that these changes are necessary for radical reforms in foreign aid.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. For more updates and in-depth analysis, be sure to subscribe to our channel. -
In the latest developments from the US Supreme Court, a significant decision was made on March 5, 2025, regarding a dispute over foreign-aid funding. The Supreme Court denied a request from the Trump administration to block a lower court order that mandated the payment of nearly $2 billion in foreign-aid reimbursements. This order, issued by U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, directed the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development to pay for work already completed by various aid groups and contractors.
The Trump administration had sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court to halt this order, arguing that it intruded on the executive branch's prerogatives in foreign affairs and could lead to payments without adequate checks for fraud and abuse. However, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, refused to lift Judge Ali's order. The majority included Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining the three liberal justices, while Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.
Justice Alito expressed strong dissent, describing the ruling as a "most unfortunate misstep" that rewards "judicial hubris" and imposes a significant financial burden on American taxpayers. He argued that the district court's order was overly broad and that federal courts have other tools to address noncompliance without such drastic measures.
This decision comes after a temporary pause issued by Chief Justice John Roberts last week to allow the full court to consider the Trump administration's request. The foreign-aid recipients had urged the Supreme Court to lift this pause, emphasizing that the government's actions were jeopardizing their operations and the lives of millions of people worldwide.
In addition to this major decision, the Supreme Court is also preparing for other significant cases. For instance, the court is set to consider the Mexican government's lawsuit against U.S. gun manufacturers, alleging that these manufacturers are liable for cartel violence committed with U.S.-made weapons.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on Supreme Court news and decisions. -
As of the latest updates, the U.S. Supreme Court is gearing up for a busy argument session in March. The Court has released its March argument schedule, which includes several significant cases. Starting on March 24 and running through April 2, the justices will hear arguments in nine cases over six days. Notable cases include a dispute over a congressional voting map in Louisiana that created a second majority-Black district, challenges to EPA regulations, and a case involving the FCC's internet and phone services program for underserved areas.
In addition to the upcoming arguments, the Court is also dealing with ongoing legal battles, such as the government's emergency application to stay the nationwide preliminary injunction of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). This application, filed in the waning hours of 2024, seeks to put on hold the reporting deadlines and enforcement of the CTA, which were ordered by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito requested a response from the respondents-plaintiffs by January 10, 2025, and the outcome of this application remains uncertain, potentially impacting companies and individuals affected by the CTA.
On the judicial front, there are no recent major decisions or opinions announced from the Supreme Court in the last few days. However, the Court is expected to issue opinions on various cases as part of its regular term, with live coverage available for these announcements.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on U.S. Supreme Court news. -
Hello and welcome to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Here’s the latest from the US Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has recently made several significant decisions and taken notable actions. On Monday, the court released a list of orders from their private conference held on February 21, where they denied review in several high-profile cases. Among these, the court declined to revisit its 1950 decision in *Feres v. United States*, which bars members of the military from suing the federal government for injuries incurred during military service. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing that the court should address the issues with this doctrine.
Another case that was turned down involves John Woodward, who was tried twice for murder, with both trials ending in hung juries. After the second trial, the case was dismissed for insufficient evidence, but prosecutors charged him again in 2022. Woodward argued that this violated his right against double jeopardy, but the Supreme Court chose not to weigh in on this matter.
The court also did not act on challenges to Maryland’s ban on military-style assault weapons and Rhode Island’s ban on large-capacity magazines. These cases have been under consideration for some time but were not added to the court's docket for the 2025-26 term.
In addition to these decisions, the justices are set to hold another conference on February 28 to discuss more cases and petitions.
On a broader note, the Supreme Court is gearing up for a new term with several high-profile cases on the horizon, including ones related to medical marijuana, ghost guns, and transgender care bans. The court is also expected to issue more opinions in the coming days, with oral arguments scheduled in cases such as *Esteras v. U.S.* and *Perttu v. Richards*.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don’t forget to subscribe for the latest updates and analysis on the US Supreme Court. -
In the latest developments from the US Supreme Court, the justices have made several significant decisions and declined to take up various high-profile cases. On Monday, the Supreme Court released a list of orders from their private conference, where they denied review in several cases that had been under consideration.
One notable case involves Ryan Carter, a member of the Air National Guard who filed a medical-malpractice lawsuit against the federal government after undergoing spine surgery at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. The court declined to reconsider its 1950 decision in *Feres v. United States*, which bars military members from suing the government for injuries related to military service. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented strongly, arguing that the court should "fix the mess that we have made" and criticizing the ongoing confusion in lower courts due to this ruling.
Another significant decision saw the court refuse to hear the case of Michael Pina, a San Jose police officer found liable for the fatal shooting of a suspect in an armed robbery. Pina argued that the lower court's decision effectively determined that no reasonable officer could shoot a suspect who stops complying with police and makes a motion as if to retrieve a gun. Justice Samuel Alito dissented, suggesting that the lower court made a significant mistake and that the ruling ran "roughshod over" the notice-bearing feature of qualified-immunity jurisprudence.
The court also declined to weigh in on a case involving John Woodward, who was tried twice for murder and had the case dismissed for insufficient evidence after the second trial. Woodward argued that this dismissal constituted an acquittal and thus barred a retrial under the double jeopardy clause. Justice Sonia Sotomayor agreed that the issue was important but suggested that the California Supreme Court should address it first in light of recent Supreme Court precedent.
Additionally, the Supreme Court did not act on several high-profile petitions, including challenges to Maryland’s ban on military-style assault weapons and Rhode Island’s ban on large-capacity magazines. They also declined to decide whether a Texas family can sue the leader of a SWAT team that mistakenly raided their home in 2019.
In other news, the Supreme Court is set to begin its new term with several major cases on the horizon, including those dealing with medical marijuana, ghost guns, and transgender care bans. The court has also been considering cases related to election rules and the medical restrictions for gender-affirming care for minors.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on Supreme Court news. -
Hello and welcome to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. I'm Jason, your reporter for the latest developments from the US Supreme Court.
Recently, the Supreme Court made several significant decisions and took up new cases that are garnering considerable attention. One of the major headlines involves the Court's unanimous decision to uphold the conditional ban on TikTok. In the cases of *TikTok v. Garland* and *Firebaugh v. Garland*, the Court supported the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, which mandates that TikTok’s Chinese parent company, ByteDance, must sell the platform to a non-Chinese owner to avoid a ban in the US. The Court rejected TikTok’s First Amendment challenge, citing the threat of China collecting sensitive data from US users.
Another important decision came in *E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera*, where the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the preponderance of the evidence standard remains the default in civil litigation unless explicitly altered by statute or constitutional mandate. This ruling clarified the burden of proof for employers claiming exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
In *Royal Canin v. Wullschleger*, the Court held that federal courts lose jurisdiction over state law claims when a plaintiff amends a complaint to eliminate federal law claims. This means that such cases must be remanded to state court or dismissed if originally filed in federal court.
Looking ahead, the Supreme Court has several key cases on its docket. One notable case is *Parrish v. United States*, which will address the timing of appeals and its jurisdictional consequences. Another significant case is *Laboratory Corp. of America v. Davis*, which will determine whether a federal court can certify a class action that includes members who lack an Article III injury.
The Court is also set to decide on the finality of federal agency orders in *McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corporation*, specifically whether district courts must follow the Federal Communications Commission’s interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Additionally, the Supreme Court will explore the scope of protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) post-employment in *Stanley v. City of Sanford*. This case questions whether a former employee loses the right to file a discrimination claim related to post-employment benefits once they are no longer employed.
In a recent development, the Supreme Court is considering the Government’s application to vacate a temporary restraining order in *Bessent v. Dellinger*. This case involves the President’s action to remove Hampton Dellinger from his position as Special Counsel for the Office of Special Counsel, and the District Court's temporary order to keep Dellinger in office until a hearing on his motion for a preliminary injunction.
These are just a few of the significant developments and upcoming cases that highlight the ongoing activities of the US Supreme Court.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis of the Supreme Court's actions. -
Hello and welcome to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. I'm Jason, your reporter for the latest developments from the US Supreme Court.
Recently, the Supreme Court made a significant decision in the cases of *TikTok v. Garland* and *Firebaugh v. Garland*, where the Court unanimously upheld the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. This law mandates that TikTok must be sold to a non-Chinese owner if its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, does not comply. The Court rejected TikTok’s First Amendment challenge, citing the threat of China collecting sensitive data from TikTok’s U.S. users to influence public opinion.
In another key decision, the Supreme Court clarified the standard of proof for exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in *E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera*. The Court reaffirmed that the preponderance of the evidence standard remains the default unless explicitly altered by statute or constitutional mandate.
The Court also addressed jurisdictional issues in *Royal Canin v. Wullschleger*, ruling that federal courts lose jurisdiction over state law claims when a plaintiff amends a complaint to eliminate federal law claims. This means such cases must be remanded to state court or dismissed if originally filed in federal court.
Upcoming cases include *Parrish v. United States*, which will examine the timing of appeals and its jurisdictional consequences, and *Laboratory Corp. of America v. Davis*, which will decide whether a federal court can certify a class action that includes members who lack an Article III injury.
Additionally, the Supreme Court is set to determine in *FDA v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co.* whether an e-cigarette manufacturer can seek review of the FDA’s denial of its marketing application in a forum where it does not reside. Another significant case, *McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corporation*, will explore the finality of federal agency orders, specifically the FCC’s interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Court is also tackling post-employment disability discrimination in *Stanley v. City of Sanford*, where the issue is whether a former employee loses the right to file a discrimination claim related to post-employment benefits once they are no longer employed.
These decisions and upcoming cases highlight the Supreme Court’s ongoing role in shaping critical legal issues across various domains, from civil procedure and employment rights to regulatory authority and individual protections.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don’t forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis of Supreme Court news. -
As of the latest updates, the US Supreme Court has been involved in several significant cases and decisions. One of the notable recent developments is the court's handling of emergency applications. For instance, on February 3, 2025, the Supreme Court denied an emergency application for a stay of mandate in the case of Aiello v. U.S., refusing to address a sufficiency challenge on remand.
In another notable case, Trump v. New York, the court denied an emergency application for a stay of criminal proceedings against Donald Trump on January 9, 2025. This decision was marked by a split among the justices, with Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh dissenting and advocating for granting the stay.
The Supreme Court has also been active in cases related to executive and regulatory powers. For example, in Garland v. Texas Top Cop Shop, the court granted an emergency application for a stay on January 23, 2025, halting a district court's universal injunction against the Corporate Transparency Act, a 2021 anti-money-laundering law. Justice Gorsuch concurred, while Justice Jackson dissented.
On the regulatory front, the court has been considering various challenges to federal agencies' actions. Although not a recent decision, it's worth noting that the court is set to hear arguments in cases like FCC v. Consumers’ Research, which involves the constitutionality of a federal law requiring the FCC to establish programs for affordable internet access under the nondelegation doctrine.
In terms of ongoing cases, the Supreme Court is currently deliberating on whether the deadline for appealing an immigration removal order is jurisdictional in the case of Riley v. Garland. This case has seen briefs arguing that the statute in question is not jurisdictional but rather a claim-processing rule subject to equitable tolling.
Additionally, the court has been addressing several execution stays and other urgent matters. For example, recent denials of execution stays include those for Kevin Underwood and Joseph E. Corcoran, both of which were denied in December 2024.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on the US Supreme Court. -
In recent developments, the US Supreme Court has been at the center of several significant legal battles and decisions. One of the most notable events is the Supreme Court's agreement to hear a case involving the Biden Administration's changes to the borrower defense rule. This rule, finalized in November 2022, aims to make it easier for students defrauded by their institutions to qualify for loan discharges. The case was brought by Career Colleges & Schools of Texas, which argues that the new rules create uncertainty and potential huge liability for its member institutions. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had previously ruled that these regulations would cause immediate and irreparable injuries to the institutions, a decision that the Department of Education appealed to the Supreme Court.
Another major headline involves President Donald Trump's efforts to expand his power to fire executive branch officials. Trump recently fired Hampton Dellinger, the head of the Office of Special Counsel, an office that enforces laws related to federal employees and investigates violations of the Hatch Act. Dellinger sued to get his job back, citing a federal statute that limits the president's ability to remove the special counsel. A federal district judge and an appeals court panel have so far sided with Dellinger, ordering his reinstatement while litigation proceeds. The Trump administration has taken this case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the lower court's order is an unprecedented assault on the separation of powers and inflicts irreparable harm on Trump's ability to manage the executive branch.
Additionally, there has been a significant development in a case related to the Biden Administration's Title IX regulations. A district court judge blocked the implementation of the updated Title IX rules, ruling that the Department of Education exceeded its statutory authority, violated the Constitution, and acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. This ruling has been hailed by some as a major victory for those opposing the new regulations, which were intended to address issues of gender identity and sexual harassment in schools.
These cases highlight the ongoing tensions between the executive branch and the judiciary, as well as the Supreme Court's role in resolving critical constitutional and statutory issues.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on Supreme Court news. -
As of the latest updates, the US Supreme Court has been involved in several significant developments, although there haven't been major new decisions or hearings in the last few days.
One of the recent notable events was the Supreme Court's ruling on the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) on June 15, 2023. In this ruling, the Court upheld the constitutionality of ICWA by a 7-2 vote, affirming Congress's authority to enact the law. The Court also reversed the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals' judgment on certain anticommandeering claims and vacated other parts of the judgment related to equal protection and nondelegation claims, remanding them for dismissal due to lack of jurisdiction.
In more current news, there are upcoming cases that are garnering attention. For instance, a case involving a state charter school board, specifically related to St. Isidore, is scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court in late April. This case is part of a broader landscape of educational and constitutional issues that the Court will be addressing.
Additionally, there is ongoing tension between the judiciary and other branches of government. Recent reports highlight how figures like Trump, Vance, and Musk are criticizing the courts and judicial decisions, particularly as judges have been halting some of the second-term agenda items. This has led to discussions about a potential constitutional crisis, with scholars weighing in on the implications.
State-by-state battles over abortion laws are also escalating and are likely to reach the Supreme Court, adding to the Court's already complex and contentious docket.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on Supreme Court news. -
As of the latest updates, the U.S. Supreme Court has been involved in several significant developments. One of the key events is the ongoing litigation surrounding the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). Despite the Supreme Court lifting the injunction in the *Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. Garland* case on January 23, 2025, reporting obligations under the CTA remain paused due to a separate nationwide injunction issued by a federal judge in Texas in the *Smith v. U.S. Department of the Treasury* case on January 7, 2025. This means that companies are not currently required to file beneficial ownership information with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), and they will not face liability for failing to do so while the injunction is in place.
In other news, the Supreme Court has added three new cases to its docket for the 2024-25 term. These include *Becerra v. Braidwood Management*, which involves a challenge to the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The case centers on whether the task force's appointments violate the Constitution's appointments clause. Another case, *Department of Education v. Career Colleges and Schools of Texas*, will review a ruling that suspended the implementation of a rule intended to streamline the process for reviewing requests for student loan forgiveness. The third case, *Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Zuch*, deals with the issue of when a tax hearing becomes moot.
These cases are expected to be argued in April, with decisions likely by late June or early July.
On a different note, there have been no major new decisions or hearings from the Supreme Court in the last few days, but the court's activities continue to be closely watched as various legal challenges and appeals make their way through the judicial system.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on U.S. Supreme Court news. -
In the latest developments from the US Supreme Court, a significant shift has occurred in a pending case involving transgender healthcare. On February 7, the Trump administration notified the Supreme Court that it has changed its position on a Tennessee law that bans the use of puberty blockers and hormone therapy for transgender minors. Unlike the Biden administration, which had argued that this law violates the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection, the Trump administration now contends that the law does not deny equal protection.
This case, which was originally filed by three transgender teens and their parents against Tennessee state officials, has been a focal point of controversy. The Biden administration had joined the case, arguing against the law, but the Trump administration's new stance aligns with the state's position. Despite this change, the Trump administration urged the Supreme Court to proceed with deciding the case, emphasizing the importance of resolving the equal protection question promptly, as it will impact many pending cases in lower courts.
In other news, the Supreme Court has decided not to pause a case related to California emissions regulations despite recent policy shifts under the Trump administration. This decision reflects the court's commitment to addressing ongoing legal disputes regardless of changing executive policies.
As the Supreme Court continues to navigate these complex issues, it is clear that the current term will be marked by significant decisions on contentious topics, including healthcare, environmental regulations, and constitutional rights.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS news Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on the US Supreme Court. -
As of the latest updates, the US Supreme Court has been involved in several significant developments. One of the notable recent events is a judge's decision to block a bid by former President Donald Trump to restrict birthright citizenship. This move has sparked considerable interest and debate, highlighting the ongoing battles over immigration and constitutional interpretations.
In addition to this, there has been a renewed focus on the broader impact of the Trump administration on executive power. Analysts and commentators are discussing how Donald Trump's presidency has transformed the scope and exercise of executive authority, a topic that continues to be a point of contention and legal scrutiny.
The Supreme Court is also preparing to tackle a critical case related to workplace anti-bias laws, specifically a trans surgery case that will test the boundaries of these laws. This case is expected to have significant implications for workplace discrimination and the interpretation of existing anti-bias legislation.
Furthermore, there has been ongoing discussion about the role of the Roberts court in shaping the concept of the "imperial presidency." This involves examining how the Supreme Court's decisions under Chief Justice John Roberts have influenced the balance of power between the executive and other branches of government.
On the educational front, a lawsuit has been filed alleging that the University of California schools have illegally used racial preferences in their admissions processes. This case touches on the contentious issue of affirmative action and racial preferences in higher education, an area that has seen numerous legal challenges in recent years.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS news Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on the US Supreme Court. -
In the latest developments from the US Supreme Court, a significant decision was made on January 9, 2025, that has garnered considerable attention. The Supreme Court cleared the way for President-elect Donald Trump's criminal sentencing to proceed in his New York hush money case. Trump had been convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records to hide reimbursements made to adult film star Stormy Daniels.
The court's decision was made through a brief, unsigned order issued in the evening, where the justices rejected Trump's plea to halt the sentencing. This ruling was not unanimous; four conservative justices – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh – indicated they would have granted Trump's request. However, the necessary five votes were not achieved, as Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the three liberal justices in allowing the sentencing to proceed.
The court reasoned that Trump's complaints about the use of evidence could be addressed on appeal and noted that the trial court intended to impose a sentence of 'unconditional discharge' after a brief virtual hearing, which would impose a relatively insubstantial burden on Trump's responsibilities as President-elect.
Additionally, there has been controversy surrounding Justice Samuel Alito, who had a conversation with Trump about one of Alito's former law clerks seeking a job in the new administration. This has led to calls from Rep. Jamie Raskin for Alito to recuse himself to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
As of now, there are no major oral arguments or decisions from the Supreme Court in the last few days that have been as pivotal as this sentencing ruling. However, the court continues to operate with its regular schedule, addressing various legal issues as they arise.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on Supreme Court news. -
As we look at the latest developments from the US Supreme Court, several key issues and upcoming cases are garnering significant attention. Chief Justice John Roberts has recently expressed concerns about the growing disregard for the Supreme Court, emphasizing the importance of maintaining judicial independence and ensuring that court decisions are honored regardless of their political implications.
Looking ahead to 2025, the Supreme Court has a robust docket with several high-stakes cases that could have significant political and social implications. One of the most closely watched cases involves a challenge to a proposed ban on TikTok, which was signed into law by President Joe Biden due to national security concerns related to the app's ties to China. The Court will decide whether the app should be banned unless it is sold to a U.S. company.
Another critical case on the horizon involves the constitutionality of a Tennessee law that bans transgender surgeries and hormone treatments for minors. This decision could set a precedent for similar laws in other states, making it a highly anticipated and contentious issue.
These cases highlight the Court's role in addressing complex and divisive issues, and Chief Justice Roberts' warning underscores the need for respect and adherence to the Court's rulings, regardless of public or political sentiment.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on the US Supreme Court. -
In the latest developments from the US Supreme Court, a significant and contentious case involving former President Donald Trump has been making headlines. On January 3, 2025, the New York trial court denied Trump’s motion to dismiss a criminal case based on claims of Presidential immunity, and subsequently set a date for criminal sentencing just a week later, on January 10, 2025. This move was criticized for violating standard practice, due process, and New York criminal law, especially given that it was scheduled just ten days before Trump’s inauguration.
Trump promptly filed an interlocutory appeal and notified the trial court that the proceedings were automatically stayed pending the appeal. However, the New York courts have refused to honor this stay, leading Trump to file an emergency application with the Supreme Court to impose an immediate stay on the criminal proceedings. The application argues that the trial court lacks authority to impose sentence or conduct further criminal proceedings until the resolution of Trump’s appeal, which raises substantial claims of Presidential immunity.
This case is particularly noteworthy given a recent Supreme Court ruling from July 2024, where the Court decided that presidents have immunity for official actions taken while in office, although this does not extend to absolute immunity. The Court ruled that the president is immune from official acts, including those at the outermost perimeter of their official duties, and that the government may not inquire into the president’s motives for these actions.
In other news, the Supreme Court is also dealing with a separate high-profile issue related to the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). The government filed an emergency application to stay a nationwide preliminary injunction against the CTA, which was ordered by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has requested that respondents submit their response to the government’s application by January 10, 2025. The outcome of this application is uncertain but will be closely watched as it coincides with other ongoing constitutional challenges in various appellate courts.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don’t forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on key Supreme Court developments. -
Hello and welcome to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. I'm Jason, your go-to source for the latest developments from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Recently, one of the most significant and contentious cases involves President-elect Donald Trump, who has appealed to the Supreme Court to block his sentencing in a New York criminal hush money case. Trump's lawyers argue that sentencing him just before his inauguration would disrupt national security and the operations of the federal government. They also claim that as President-elect, Trump should be entitled to the same immunity as a sitting president, which could expand the breadth of presidential authority. The Supreme Court has requested a response from prosecutors in New York, indicating the high stakes and urgency of this matter.
In another major development, the Supreme Court issued a decision on January 17, 2025, regarding the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. This law targets apps controlled by foreign adversaries, specifically China, and bans their use in the U.S. unless their operations are severed from Chinese control. The Court upheld this law, finding it to be content-neutral and justified by the government's interest in preventing the collection of sensitive data by China. Justices Sotomayor and Gorsuch concurred in the judgment, with Sotomayor noting that the First Amendment clearly applies to this Act.
These decisions highlight the Supreme Court's active role in addressing critical issues that intersect national security, presidential immunity, and First Amendment rights.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court. -
In recent developments, the US Supreme Court has been active on several fronts. One of the most significant updates involves the Court's decision to review a case related to the establishment of the nation's first religious charter school. The Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in the cases of *Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond* and *St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond*, which stem from a ruling by the Oklahoma Supreme Court. This ruling rejected a Catholic online school's bid to become a charter school, citing violations of state law, the Oklahoma Constitution, and the U.S. Constitution. The school argues that this decision unconstitutionally punishes the free exercise of religion by disqualifying it from government aid. The Court has fast-tracked the briefing schedule for these cases, with arguments set for the last week of April and a decision expected by late June or early July.
Another notable decision came in the case of *TikTok Inc. v. Garland*, where the Supreme Court upheld a federal law that prohibits companies in the U.S. from providing services to, distributing, maintaining, or updating TikTok unless its U.S. operations are severed from Chinese control. The Court found that the law, part of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, is content-neutral and satisfies intermediate scrutiny under the First Amendment, as it aims to prevent China from collecting sensitive data from U.S. users.
Additionally, the Supreme Court lifted a preliminary injunction that had blocked the enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) in the case of *Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., et al. v. Garland, et al*. This decision reinstates the requirement for 32 million small businesses to report beneficial ownership information, despite ongoing litigation over the constitutionality of the reporting requirements.
These decisions highlight the Supreme Court's active role in addressing a range of critical issues, from religious freedom and education to national security and business regulations.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on key Supreme Court cases and decisions. - Laat meer zien
