#supreme-court

#supreme-court

When the Supreme Court hears arguments next week on President Donald Trump's tariffs, prepare for crossed wires. Liberals who typically oppose Trump's economic policies will espouse traditionally conservative legal principles. Conservatives who prioritize doctrine over Trumpism will agree with those liberals, forming an unlikely alliance. And those who reflexively support anything Trump does, for the pure Trump of it all, will twist themselves into pretzels to justify the president's unbounded executive-power grab.

Sleeping with a passport by your pillow. Bringing a birth certificate to soccer practice. Avoiding large gatherings and crowds. Grocery shopping for relatives too afraid to go outside. These are some of the ways that US citizens and permanent residents of color have altered how they move through the world as widespread immigration raids create a pervasive climate of fear.

Tributes have poured in from across Ireland after the death of Mary McGee, a woman credited with sparking a social revolution that paved the way for the legalisation of contraceptives in the country. McGee, who went by the name May, and her husband, Seamus, hit the headlines in 1972 after the couple lodged a landmark legal challenge against a decades-old law that banned the sale or import of contraceptives in Ireland.

"All It Took for Trump to Dismantle the Justice Dept." Carol Leonnig has this guest essay online at The New York Times."Second Circuit finds Snapchat parodies of George Floyd murder fall outside school purview; The New York-based appeals court reversed the dismissal of a Sullivan County student's $1 million defamation suit against the high school that suspended him over social media posts that caused a stir locally in 2021"

Which justice was responsible for the addition of Starbucks coffee in the Supreme Court cafeteria? Hint: The most recently appointed justice serves on the Court's cafeteria committee, so they've all had a go at the job.

Conventional wisdom is that a good certiorari petition needs to show the legal error below and also show why the case is important and timely. The petition follows this dual framing strategy: (1) a doctrinal claim that the Federal Circuit has abandoned preemption as the touchstone of patent eligibility; and (2) a policy argument tied to what I think of as the "new great game" and what the Trump Administration calls "Winning the AI Race." The case also arrives at the Supreme Court as the USPTO has begun to move aggressively toward limiting its use of eligibility in patent prosecution.

it can use regular troops, almost certainly without invoking 10 U.S.C. § 12406 or any other statute. (This is the "protective" power.) The power the Trump administration is seeking here is much broader-and would almost certainly mean that federalized National Guard troops would start accompanying ICE officers on immigration raids and other operations-even if they're not making the arrests themselves. That would be a ... dramatic ... escalation relative to where we are today.

So many thoughts ... For obvious reasons, I've been reflecting a lot lately on my old constitutional law coursework. As long as the Supreme Court holds that money is speech-and the Supreme Court retains enough legitimacy to be taken seriously-I foresee major free speech issues around restricting advertising. If I were a betting man, I'd bet that the court's legitimacy will have a shorter shelf life than its view on the "marketplace of ideas," given how aggressively it's shedding any pretense of respect for precedent.

To put it simply, the Court has struggled with the correct outcome in this matter,

While many lawyers and advocates for immigrants have decried SCOTUS' implicit permission for continued racial profiling, the 93-year-old retired lawman sees the 6-3 decision as a vindication of his aggressive and constitutionally questionable policing tactics in arresting Latinos. "I was just cleared by the Supreme Court," Arpaio explained to me over the phone. "Obama and Biden went after me for racial profiling. ... They went after me [and] the Supreme Court ruled in my favor last month."