Supreme Court of the United States

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 conservative majority ruling, lifted a lower court’s nationwide injunction on former President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting mail-in voting. The order directs the Postal Service to deny ballots to voters not on federal lists and tasks DHS with citizenship verification. The Court ruled Democratic-led states sued prematurely, leaving the order’s legality unresolved. Dissenting justices warned of voter disenfranchisement. Democratic officials from 23 states and D.C. vowed to continue legal challenges, calling the order an unconstitutional power grab ahead of the midterm elections.

13 reports · 6 sources · Updated Aug 28, 10:42 PM UTC

A U.S. federal appeals court upheld a halt on former President Donald Trump's $400-600 million White House ballroom project, ruling it required congressional approval. The project, which involved demolishing the historic East Wing and included a bunker and drone port, was deemed beyond executive authority. Trump has appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing national security necessity. The case tests executive power limits and historic preservation.

23 reports · 9 sources · Updated Aug 21, 08:56 PM UTC

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected President Donald Trump’s final appeal to overturn a $5 million defamation and sexual abuse verdict won by writer E. Jean Carroll. The decision ends Trump’s legal challenges in this case, allowing Carroll to access the $5.6 million (including interest) paid into a court-controlled account. Trump’s team denounced the ruling as a “witch hunt.” A separate $83.3 million judgment against Trump in a related Carroll case remains under appeal.

11 reports · 5 sources · Updated Aug 18, 03:02 PM UTC

President Donald Trump reposted a Truth Social message from commentator Tim Pool calling Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett 'clearly terrified of the left,' escalating his criticism of the conservative justice. Barrett, whom Trump appointed in 2020, has recently broken with his administration on key cases. In February, she joined a 6-3 majority striking down Trump's sweeping global tariffs. She also sided with liberal justices to block Trump's attempt to freeze nearly $2 billion in foreign aid. Additionally, Barrett dissented in Fischer v. United States, arguing a federal obstruction law should apply to January 6 rioters, while the court narrowed its application. These rulings have drawn ire from the right, including Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., who called for Barrett's removal. Trump has privately expressed frustration with Barrett, according to ABC News. The Supreme Court is in summer recess and will reconvene in October.

1 reports · 1 sources · Updated Jul 29, 08:04 PM UTC

The Justice Department filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court on Monday, seeking approval for President Donald Trump's executive order imposing new restrictions on voting by mail. The request follows a 2-1 ruling by the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Saturday that blocked key parts of the March directive, which ordered federal agencies to create voter eligibility lists and restrict USPS delivery of ballots not tied to those lists. More than 20 Democratic attorneys general had challenged the order as unconstitutional and potentially disenfranchising. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued the lower court's ruling was 'indefensible' and prevented the federal government from promoting election integrity. The appeals court judges said the order would 'sow confusion' and 'threaten disenfranchisement.' Legal experts note the Constitution gives election power to states and Congress, not the president, and independent research has found no evidence of rampant mail-ballot fraud. The Supreme Court has previously shown skepticism of such restrictions. Democratic states have until August 3 to respond, with a decision expected soon after.

1 reports · 1 sources · Updated Jul 28, 03:37 PM UTC

On July 28, 1880, the city of San Francisco enacted an ordinance prohibiting the operation of laundries in wooden buildings without the consent of the board of supervisors. This ordinance was later challenged and found unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark 1886 case Yick Wo v. Hopkins. The ruling established that a facially neutral law applied in a discriminatory manner violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case is a foundational precedent for civil rights and anti-discrimination law in the United States.

1 reports · 1 sources · Updated Jul 28, 11:00 AM UTC

On July 28, 1880, the city of San Francisco enacted an ordinance prohibiting the operation of laundries in wooden buildings without the consent of the board of supervisors. This ordinance was later challenged and found unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark 1886 case Yick Wo v. Hopkins. The case established important precedents regarding equal protection under the law and racial discrimination, as the ordinance was applied in a discriminatory manner against Chinese immigrants. The article, published by Reason.com on July 28, 2026, highlights this historical event as part of a series on Supreme Court history.

1 reports · 1 sources · Updated Jul 28, 11:00 AM UTC

On July 17, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 10-5 en banc in Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs v. Attorney General New Jersey that New Jersey's ban on semiautomatic rifles and magazines holding over ten rounds violates the Second Amendment. This is the first federal circuit court decision to invalidate such bans. The opinion, authored by Judge Arianna J. Freeman, applied the common-use test from Heller and Bruen, finding that millions of semiautomatic rifles are in common use for lawful purposes including self-defense, hunting, and mere possession. The court rejected arguments that such weapons are 'dangerous and unusual,' placing the burden on the state to prove a historical tradition of banning them. The ruling contrasts with other circuits that have upheld similar bans. Some judges would have waited for a Supreme Court decision in Viramontes/Grant, but the majority proceeded, citing Justice Kavanaugh's statement that further appellate decisions would assist the Court.

1 reports · 1 sources · Updated Jul 23, 01:57 AM UTC

On July 17, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 10-5 en banc decision in Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs v. Attorney General New Jersey, ruled that New Jersey's ban on semiautomatic rifles and magazines holding over ten rounds violates the Second Amendment. This is the first federal circuit court to invalidate such bans. The court applied the common-use test from Heller and Bruen, finding that millions of semiautomatic rifles are in common use for lawful purposes including self-defense, hunting, and possession. The burden shifted to the state to prove the weapons are 'dangerous and unusual,' which New Jersey failed to do. The ruling contrasts with other circuits that have upheld similar bans. The decision may influence the Supreme Court's pending review of similar cases.

1 reports · 1 sources · Updated Jul 23, 01:57 AM UTC

The Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Slaughter effectively ends the independence of federal agencies like the FTC, allowing the President to remove principal officers without cause, overturning the long-standing Humphrey's Executor precedent. While many agencies had already aligned with presidential agendas, the ruling introduces new risks: presidents can now disable agencies by removing members and leaving them without a quorum, as seen with the Election Assistance Commission. This is particularly problematic for multi-member commissions like the NLRB and FEC, which cannot use interim appointments under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. The analysis suggests that while the President gains control, the ability to paralyze agencies may backfire, preventing both favorable and unfavorable actions.

1 reports · 1 sources · Updated Jul 22, 07:26 PM UTC

On July 22, 1937, the United States Senate voted decisively against President Franklin D. Roosevelt's controversial Court-Packing plan by a margin of 70 to 20. The plan, proposed earlier that year, aimed to expand the Supreme Court by adding up to six new justices, ostensibly to ease the workload of aging judges but widely seen as an attempt to shift the Court's ideological balance in favor of Roosevelt's New Deal legislation. The Senate's overwhelming rejection marked a significant political defeat for Roosevelt and preserved the Court's existing structure. The article, published by Reason.com under The Volokh Conspiracy, highlights this historical event as a key moment in Supreme Court and American political history.

1 reports · 1 sources · Updated Jul 22, 11:00 AM UTC

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear *Jouppi v. Alaska*, where 82-year-old pilot Ken Jouppi challenges the state's seizure of his $95,000 Cessna after a passenger brought a six-pack of beer to a dry village in 2012. Jouppi, represented by the Institute for Justice, argues the forfeiture violates the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause, as the plane's value far exceeds his $1,500 fine and three-day sentence. The case could clarify limits on civil asset forfeiture and state power.

13 reports · 5 sources · Updated Jul 22, 10:00 AM UTC

Roger Rogoff, a U.S. Attorney appointed by a federal judge in the Western District of Washington, was fired by President Trump. Rogoff has sued Trump, seeking a preliminary injunction to invalidate his removal, arguing it violates the Appointments Clause. The article, written from a legal analysis perspective, contends that the Supreme Court's decision in Morrison v. Olson, which allowed federal judges to appoint prosecutors not subject to presidential removal, should be overruled. It notes that while much of Morrison was effectively overturned by Slaughter, the issue of judicial appointment of inferior officers remains. The author argues that federal judges should not appoint executive branch prosecutors, especially those the President cannot fire, and predicts the case will be appealed to the Ninth Circuit and potentially the Supreme Court.

1 reports · 1 sources · Updated Jul 22, 03:49 AM UTC

Roger Rogoff, a U.S. Attorney appointed by a federal judge in the Western District of Washington, was fired by President Trump. Rogoff has sued Trump, seeking a preliminary injunction to invalidate his removal. The lawsuit argues that the firing violates the Appointments Clause, even after the recent Supreme Court decision in Slaughter. The article, published on Reason.com, analyzes the constitutional debate over whether federal judges can appoint executive branch prosecutors who are not subject to presidential removal. It contends that the remaining precedent from Morrison v. Olson, which allowed such appointments, should be overruled. The author argues that federal judges should not appoint U.S. Attorneys and that the Ninth Circuit will likely rule against Trump, setting up a potential Supreme Court review.

1 reports · 1 sources · Updated Jul 22, 03:49 AM UTC

Roger Rogoff, a U.S. Attorney appointed by a federal judge in the Western District of Washington, was fired by President Trump. Rogoff has sued Trump, seeking a preliminary injunction to invalidate his removal, arguing it violates the Appointments Clause. The case challenges the remaining precedent from Morrison v. Olson, which allowed federal judges to appoint prosecutors not subject to presidential removal. The article, written by a legal scholar, argues that federal judges should not appoint executive branch prosecutors and that the Supreme Court should overrule this aspect of Morrison. It notes that the Independent Counsel statute is already effectively dead after the Slaughter decision, but the issue of judicial appointment of inferior officers remains. The author expects the district court to rule against Trump, with a likely reversal by the Ninth Circuit.

1 reports · 1 sources · Updated Jul 22, 03:49 AM UTC

This analysis examines the Supreme Court's unusual handling of Trump v. Cook, a case involving President Trump's removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. The Court took over 280 days to decide on an emergency stay application, departing from normal practice. Justice Alito's dissent criticizes the delay and the Court's decision to resolve complex constitutional questions on an underdeveloped record. The article suggests Chief Justice Roberts orchestrated this slow-walk approach, effectively freezing lower court proceedings for nine months. Justice Kagan's recent softening of her criticism of the 'shadow docket' is noted as evidence of behind-the-scenes changes. The case raises significant questions about Federal Reserve independence, jurisdiction, and the proper role of the Supreme Court in emergency applications.

1 reports · 1 sources · Updated Jul 21, 09:56 PM UTC

This analysis examines the Supreme Court's unusual handling of Trump v. Cook, a case concerning President Trump's removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. The Court took over 280 days to decide on an emergency stay application, departing from normal practice by deferring ruling and freezing lower court proceedings. Justice Alito's dissent criticizes the delay and the Court's decision to resolve complex constitutional questions on an underdeveloped record. Justice Kagan's recent testimony suggests the Court has improved its emergency docket procedures, likely referencing this case. The article highlights tensions within the Court over the shadow docket and separation of powers issues regarding the Federal Reserve's independence.

1 reports · 1 sources · Updated Jul 21, 09:56 PM UTC

In a lighthearted opinion piece published on Reason.com, the author notes that Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett appeared to have swapped their typical political color associations during a recent court session. Kagan wore a bright red suit while Barrett wore a dark blue suit, reversing the usual red (Republican) and blue (Democratic) color coding. The author, who had been busy finishing a casebook chapter on Trump v. Barbara, suggests this may have been a subliminal attempt at bipartisanship, though acknowledges it could be coincidental. The piece also mentions several pending Supreme Court cases the author plans to analyze, including Slaughter, Cook, and West Virginia v. B.P.J.

1 reports · 1 sources · Updated Jul 21, 04:42 PM UTC

The Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Cook, while technically narrow, has significant implications for Federal Reserve independence. The Court ruled that members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors cannot be removed by the President for policy disagreements or at will, but only 'for cause' as specified in the Federal Reserve Act. This halted President Trump's attempt to remove Governor Lisa Cook over allegations of mortgage fraud. The Court interpreted the 'for cause' requirement to include procedural protections, making removal difficult without substantial new evidence. The 5-4 decision saw Chief Justice Roberts writing the majority opinion, joined by Justice Kavanaugh and the three liberal justices. Dissenting justices argued the Court should have limited its ruling to the injunction. The article also discusses background on the case, the nature of required removal procedures, and remaining questions about the scope of Fed independence beyond monetary policy.

1 reports · 1 sources · Updated Jul 21, 11:48 AM UTC

The Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Cook, while technically narrow, has significant implications for Federal Reserve independence. The Court ruled that President Trump could not remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook without following proper 'for cause' procedures under the Federal Reserve Act. The case began in August 2025 when Trump demanded Cook's resignation after a housing agency called for a fraud investigation into her mortgage applications. Cook sued, and lower courts blocked her removal. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice Roberts, upheld the injunction, interpreting the 'for cause' removal standard as requiring procedural due process. The ruling distinguishes the Fed from other independent agencies where the President now has broader removal power. Key questions remain about the required removal process, the scope of protection for non-monetary Fed functions, and the constitutional durability of the ruling.

1 reports · 1 sources · Updated Jul 21, 11:48 AM UTC

On July 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a surprise order granting certiorari in the case of Jouppi v. Alaska, which had been conferenced on June 29 but not acted upon. The case concerns whether courts may consider the gravity of the underlying offense in the abstract or must consider the specific defendant's wrongdoing when determining excessive fines. The petition was filed in August 2025 and was held pending the resolution of Pung v. Isabella County. The three-week delay between conference and grant is highly unusual, with possible explanations including internal deliberations, a Justice wanting more time, or summer discussions among Justices. SCOTUSBlog identified similar summer grants in 2012 and 2021. The article notes this as a data point supporting arguments to eliminate the Supreme Court's summer recess.

1 reports · 1 sources · Updated Jul 20, 09:37 PM UTC

On July 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a rare summer certiorari grant in the case Jouppi v. Alaska (25-246), which had been conferenced on June 29 but not acted upon until nearly three weeks later. The case asks whether courts considering the Excessive Fines Clause should evaluate the gravity of the underlying offense in the abstract or the specific defendant's wrongdoing. The petition was filed in August 2025 and was held pending the resolution of Pung v. Isabella County, decided June 23. The unusual timing—a grant issued during the summer recess—prompted analysis from SCOTUSBlog, which identified only a few prior instances of summer cert grants, including Chafin v. Chafin (2012) and Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez (2021). The article speculates on possible reasons for the delay, including internal deliberations or calendar scheduling, and notes the author plans to publish an essay arguing for elimination of the Court's summer recess.

1 reports · 1 sources · Updated Jul 20, 09:37 PM UTC

On July 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a rare summer cert grant in the case of Jouppi v. Alaska (25-246), which had been conferenced on June 29 but not acted upon until nearly three weeks later. The case questions whether courts considering the Excessive Fines Clause should evaluate the gravity of the underlying offense in the abstract or the specific defendant's wrongdoing. The petition was filed in August 2025 and held pending the resolution of Pung v. Isabella County, decided on June 23. The unusual timing—a grant during the summer recess—prompted speculation about internal deliberations or docket management. SCOTUSBlog noted similar summer grants in 2012 and 2021. The article's author argues this supports eliminating the Court's summer recess to prevent petition backlogs.

1 reports · 1 sources · Updated Jul 20, 09:37 PM UTC

The article analyzes the double standard in U.S. constitutional law highlighted by the Supreme Court's unanimous ruling in United States v. Hemani (June 2026), which held that the government cannot strip firearm rights from marijuana users under the Second Amendment. However, the article contrasts this with the much weaker protection for the right to earn a living. It notes that state licensing boards can deny professional licenses (e.g., cosmetology, dietetics) based on past drug convictions or arrests under 'good moral character' requirements, which face only a 'rational basis' test and are presumed constitutional. The asymmetry traces back to the Carolene Products footnote, which gives full protection to enumerated rights (like bearing arms) but leaves unenumerated rights (like working) vulnerable. The article cites the case of Courtney Haveman, who was denied a cosmetology license due to past misdemeanors, as a rare win against such requirements.

1 reports · 1 sources · Updated Jul 20, 05:00 PM UTC

The article analyzes the Supreme Court's unanimous June 2026 ruling in United States v. Hemani, which held that the government cannot strip a person's Second Amendment right to possess a firearm solely because they use marijuana, as the government failed to show a historical tradition of such regulation. However, the piece highlights a constitutional double standard: while gun rights receive strong judicial protection, the right to earn a living is subject to a much weaker 'rational basis' test. States routinely deny occupational licenses—for cosmetology, dietetics, massage therapy, etc.—based on past drug convictions or 'good moral character' requirements, even when the offense has no bearing on job fitness. The article traces this asymmetry to the famous Footnote 4 in United States v. Carolene Products (1938), which created a hierarchy where enumerated constitutional rights are presumed protected while unenumerated rights like economic liberty are presumed constitutional unless challengers meet an almost impossible burden. The author argues this misunderstands the Framers' intent, as James Madison feared a Bill of Rights might imply unlisted rights are unprotected.

1 reports · 1 sources · Updated Jul 20, 05:00 PM UTC

On July 17, 2026, the en banc Third Circuit ruled in Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs v. Attorney General of New Jersey that New Jersey's ban on 'assault firearms' and large-capacity magazines violates the Second Amendment. The majority opinion was written by Biden appointee Judge Arianna Freeman. Judge Tamika Montgomery-Reeves, also a Biden appointee, concurred but expressed reservations about the timing, noting the Supreme Court had granted certiorari on June 30, 2026, in similar cases from Illinois and Connecticut (Viramontes). She stated she saw 'little reason to decide this case now' but joined the majority. The article analyzes the chronology: the case was argued en banc in October 2025, and the court likely expected the Supreme Court to deny cert after 21 relists. The surprise grant created a dilemma. The author notes no party requested a hold, and praises Judge Paul Matey's scholarly concurrence.

1 reports · 1 sources · Updated Jul 20, 12:31 PM UTC

On July 17, 2026, the en banc Third Circuit ruled in Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs v. Attorney General of New Jersey that the state's ban on 'assault firearms' and large-capacity magazines violates the Second Amendment. The majority opinion was written by Biden appointee Judge Arianna Freeman. Judge Tamika Montgomery-Reeves, also a Biden appointee, concurred but expressed reservations about the timing, noting the Supreme Court had granted certiorari on June 30 in similar cases from Illinois and Connecticut (Viramontes). She stated she saw little reason to decide the case now but joined the majority. The article explores the procedural chronology: the case was argued in July 2025, en banc argued in October 2025, and decided after the Supreme Court unexpectedly granted cert after 21 relists. The author suggests the Third Circuit likely expected cert to be denied and proceeded to write opinions, but the grant created a dilemma. Judge Paul Matey's scholarly concurrence is also praised.

1 reports · 1 sources · Updated Jul 20, 12:31 PM UTC

This opinion piece argues that Congress should adopt a mandatory public injury report system similar to professional sports leagues, citing the increasing number of aged, infirm, and secretive lawmakers. It notes that five lawmakers have died in office in the current Congress, including Senator Lindsey Graham from an aortic dissection. The article draws historical parallels to cover-ups of presidential and judicial incapacities, such as Woodrow Wilson's stroke and Justice William O. Douglas's cognitive decline. It also references recent controversies including Judge Pauline Newman's suspension and scrutiny over Presidents Biden and Trump's mental faculties. The author contends that Congress is the branch where the problem is most apparent and most easily remedied through transparency reforms.

1 reports · 1 sources · Updated Jul 20, 10:00 AM UTC

The article argues that Congress should adopt a mandatory injury report system similar to professional sports leagues, given the increasing age, infirmity, and secrecy surrounding the health of elected officials. It notes that five lawmakers have died in office in the current Congress, including Senator Lindsey Graham from an aortic dissection. The piece contrasts the transparency required for athletes like Yankees star Aaron Judge with the opacity surrounding politicians' medical conditions. It cites historical examples of cover-ups, including President Woodrow Wilson's stroke and Justice William O. Douglas's cognitive decline, and notes current concerns about Presidents Biden and Trump. The author contends that Congress is the most visible and easily reformed branch for such a transparency measure.

1 reports · 1 sources · Updated Jul 20, 10:00 AM UTC

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case involving North Dakota rancher Leonard Hoffmann, whose land was seized by WBI Energy Transmission for a natural gas pipeline. The company offered about half the market value, leading to a lawsuit. A district court ruled that WBI must pay the plaintiffs' legal fees of approximately $383,375 under North Dakota law, which allows restoring plaintiffs to their original financial position. However, the 8th Circuit reversed that decision, creating a split with the Third, Fifth, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits. The case centers on whether federal law under the Natural Gas Act or state law governs compensation rules when private companies exercise eminent domain. The plaintiffs argue that without fee recovery, the constitutional right to just compensation is undermined. The Court's decision could affect millions of miles of pipeline and countless condemnation proceedings nationwide.

1 reports · 1 sources · Updated Jul 17, 08:30 PM UTC