cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Cases regarding the 14th aren’t touching the overthrow caucus at this time.
Supreme Court Anyone?
- Thread starter printer
- Start date
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
We will soon see, Donald has yet to answer for his most recent conduct. The way I have it figured is he will be disqualified inside 90 days or there will be a constitutional shit storm. He should also see his coconspirators convicted in Georgia before the end of the year and sentenced just after it. If guilty, the judge should send them both to prison for a long time and Trump was the kingpin.
We won't have long to wait about either disqualification or the fate of cheese and crackers in Georgia I figure.
topcat
Well-Known Member
Yes, they are resilient, but they are still a minority of voters. I seriously doubt the voters that came out in 2020 just to vote against Loser45 will change their minds. I think even more will do it in '24. It's a feeling and a hope. The fascists won't win. Fascism does not work well with a capitalist free market. There, I said it. Now, dogpile on topcat.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
For clarity’s sake I was talking about the legislators and other top government figures who were aiding and abetting the insurrection.
Including each and everyone of these treasonous scum.
The job ain’t done until every last player on this list has been 14thed and perhaps indicted after being marched out of the Capitol before a sea of cameras.
The 147 Republicans Who Voted to Overturn Election Results (Published 2021)
Republican lawmakers raised objections to the official certification of electoral votes in a joint session of Congress that went into the wee hours of Thursday morning, in a futile effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. See who supported the objections.
Last edited:
topcat
Well-Known Member
Agreed. I still think the voters will determine their longevity, dependent on their locale, of course. If hillbillies want to continue voting against their best interests, we can't stop 'em. I've got a long list of subversive members of congress, and others, I want to see prosecuted.For clarity’s sake I was talking about the legislators and other top government figures who were aiding and abetting the insurrection.
Including each and everyone of these treasonous scum.
The job ain’t done until every last player on this list has been 14thed and perhaps indicted after being matched out of the Capitol before a sea of cameras.
The 147 Republicans Who Voted to Overturn Election Results (Published 2021)
Republican lawmakers raised objections to the official certification of electoral votes in a joint session of Congress that went into the wee hours of Thursday morning, in a futile effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. See who supported the objections.www.nytimes.com
printer
Well-Known Member
Supreme Court to hear cases on Florida, Texas social media laws
The Supreme Court announced Friday it will hear two cases stemming from controversial laws in Texas and Florida regulating social media platforms’ content moderation decisions.
The laws aim to prohibit social media companies from banning users based on political views, even if users violate platform policies, essentially limiting companies from being able to enforce their policies.
The high court will consider whether the laws’ content moderation restrictions and their “individualized-explanation requirements” are compliant with the First Amendment.
Any outcome at the Supreme Court could have resounding implications for online speech after two lower courts, the 5th Circuit and 11th Circuit appeals courts, had conflicting opinions on blocking and upholding the two states’ similar laws.
The laws were challenged in court by two tech industry groups, the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) and NetChoice. They said the social media laws violate private companies’ First Amendment right to decide what speech to host.
The tech groups cheered the court’s decision to hear the cases.
“This order is encouraging. It is high time that the Supreme Court resolves whether governments can force websites to publish dangerous content. Telling private websites they must give equal treatment to extremist hate isn’t just unwise, it is unconstitutional, and we look forward to demonstrating that to the Court,” CCIA President Matt Schruers said in a statement.
“Online services have a well-established First Amendment right to host, curate and share content as they see fit,” NetChoice litigation director Chris Marchese said in a statement. “The internet is a vital platform for free expression, and it must remain free from government censorship. We are confident the Court will agree.”
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided to uphold a block on major provisions in Florida’s law, siding with the tech industry groups. The panel agreed that no matter the extent of technological advancement, the “basic principles of freedom of speech and the press” remain, including for private corporations.
But the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reached the opposite conclusion in the Texas case. Judge Andrew Stephen Oldham, an appointee of former President Trump, wrote in the panel’s opinion that the First Amendment doesn’t guarantee corporations the “unenumerated right to muzzle speech.”
In Florida’s petition to the Supreme Court to hear its case, Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody (R) said the 11th Circuit’s decision to block the state’s law “squarely conflicts” with the 5th Circuit’s ruling for Texas, which upheld the state’s similar law. The trade associations also appealed to the Supreme Court.
At least four of the nine justices had to agree to take up the cases, a decision that came with little surprise after several justices previously indicated interest.
Last May, the Supreme Court decided 5-4 to take emergency action, pausing enforcement of the Texas law until the 5th Circuit could more fully consider the case. Justice Samuel Alito — writing for himself, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch — said in a dissenting opinion that the case posed “novel legal questions” of “great importance that will plainly merit this Court’s review.” Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court’s liberals, did not join Alito’s opinion but indicated she agreed with the three conservative justices’ votes.
The justices’ request for the Biden administration to weigh in on the case also teased their interest in taking it up.
In August, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar asked the Supreme Court to overturn the 5th Circuit’s decision to uphold the Texas law, suggesting the conflicting opinions warrant a Supreme Court review.
“Considering the two laws together would give the Court the fullest opportunity to address the relevant issues,” she wrote.
thehill.com
The Supreme Court announced Friday it will hear two cases stemming from controversial laws in Texas and Florida regulating social media platforms’ content moderation decisions.
The laws aim to prohibit social media companies from banning users based on political views, even if users violate platform policies, essentially limiting companies from being able to enforce their policies.
The high court will consider whether the laws’ content moderation restrictions and their “individualized-explanation requirements” are compliant with the First Amendment.
Any outcome at the Supreme Court could have resounding implications for online speech after two lower courts, the 5th Circuit and 11th Circuit appeals courts, had conflicting opinions on blocking and upholding the two states’ similar laws.
The laws were challenged in court by two tech industry groups, the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) and NetChoice. They said the social media laws violate private companies’ First Amendment right to decide what speech to host.
The tech groups cheered the court’s decision to hear the cases.
“This order is encouraging. It is high time that the Supreme Court resolves whether governments can force websites to publish dangerous content. Telling private websites they must give equal treatment to extremist hate isn’t just unwise, it is unconstitutional, and we look forward to demonstrating that to the Court,” CCIA President Matt Schruers said in a statement.
“Online services have a well-established First Amendment right to host, curate and share content as they see fit,” NetChoice litigation director Chris Marchese said in a statement. “The internet is a vital platform for free expression, and it must remain free from government censorship. We are confident the Court will agree.”
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided to uphold a block on major provisions in Florida’s law, siding with the tech industry groups. The panel agreed that no matter the extent of technological advancement, the “basic principles of freedom of speech and the press” remain, including for private corporations.
But the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reached the opposite conclusion in the Texas case. Judge Andrew Stephen Oldham, an appointee of former President Trump, wrote in the panel’s opinion that the First Amendment doesn’t guarantee corporations the “unenumerated right to muzzle speech.”
In Florida’s petition to the Supreme Court to hear its case, Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody (R) said the 11th Circuit’s decision to block the state’s law “squarely conflicts” with the 5th Circuit’s ruling for Texas, which upheld the state’s similar law. The trade associations also appealed to the Supreme Court.
At least four of the nine justices had to agree to take up the cases, a decision that came with little surprise after several justices previously indicated interest.
Last May, the Supreme Court decided 5-4 to take emergency action, pausing enforcement of the Texas law until the 5th Circuit could more fully consider the case. Justice Samuel Alito — writing for himself, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch — said in a dissenting opinion that the case posed “novel legal questions” of “great importance that will plainly merit this Court’s review.” Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court’s liberals, did not join Alito’s opinion but indicated she agreed with the three conservative justices’ votes.
The justices’ request for the Biden administration to weigh in on the case also teased their interest in taking it up.
In August, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar asked the Supreme Court to overturn the 5th Circuit’s decision to uphold the Texas law, suggesting the conflicting opinions warrant a Supreme Court review.
“Considering the two laws together would give the Court the fullest opportunity to address the relevant issues,” she wrote.
Supreme Court to hear cases on Florida, Texas social media laws
The Supreme Court announced Friday it will hear two cases stemming from controversial laws in Texas and Florida regulating social media platforms’ content moderation decisions. The laws aim to proh…
thehill.com
printer
Well-Known Member
Supreme Court Rejects Long Shot's Bid to Disqualify Trump in '24
The Supreme Court on Monday turned away a case involving whether former President Donald Trump should be disqualified from the 2024 election under a constitutional provision barring anyone who "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" from holding public office.
The justices rejected an appeal by John Anthony Castro, a Texas tax consultant who has mounted a long-shot bid for the Republican presidential nomination, of a lower court's finding that he lacked the legal standing to sue seeking Trump's disqualification under the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. Castro has cited Trump's actions relating to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by the then-president's supporters as insurrection.
This might not be the final time the Supreme Court is asked to weigh in on the subject. Other litigation on the 14th amendment and Trump is still playing out in lower courts.
The justices announced their action on the first day of their new nine-month term.
The lawsuit, filed by Castro in federal court in Florida, sought to have Trump declared ineligible to pursue public office and block him from applying to appear on the ballot in any U.S. state.
Castro cited Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars any person from holding federal or state office who took an oath "to support the Constitution of the United States" and then "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." The amendment was ratified in the aftermath of the American Civil War of 1861-1865 in which southern states rebelled in a bid for secession.
Castro argued Trump provided "aid or comfort" to an insurrection by expressing sympathy toward his supporters who stormed the Capitol in a failed bid to block Congress from certifying Democrat Joe Biden's 2020 election victory over him, and by saying he would consider pardoning them if re-elected.
A federal judge in June dismissed Castro's lawsuit, finding that he had failed to show a legal injury, which prompted Castro to appeal both to the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.
Trump, the front-runner in the race for the Republican nomination to challenge Biden in 2024, has continued to make the false claim that the 2020 election was stolen from him through widespread voting fraud.
Other legal efforts to disqualify Trump based on the 14th Amendment are underway including a Sept. 6 lawsuit filed by the nonpartisan group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington to try to block Trump from appearing on the presidential ballot in Colorado if he wins the Republican nomination.
The Supreme Court on Monday turned away a case involving whether former President Donald Trump should be disqualified from the 2024 election under a constitutional provision barring anyone who "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" from holding public office.
The justices rejected an appeal by John Anthony Castro, a Texas tax consultant who has mounted a long-shot bid for the Republican presidential nomination, of a lower court's finding that he lacked the legal standing to sue seeking Trump's disqualification under the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. Castro has cited Trump's actions relating to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by the then-president's supporters as insurrection.
This might not be the final time the Supreme Court is asked to weigh in on the subject. Other litigation on the 14th amendment and Trump is still playing out in lower courts.
The justices announced their action on the first day of their new nine-month term.
The lawsuit, filed by Castro in federal court in Florida, sought to have Trump declared ineligible to pursue public office and block him from applying to appear on the ballot in any U.S. state.
Castro cited Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars any person from holding federal or state office who took an oath "to support the Constitution of the United States" and then "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." The amendment was ratified in the aftermath of the American Civil War of 1861-1865 in which southern states rebelled in a bid for secession.
Castro argued Trump provided "aid or comfort" to an insurrection by expressing sympathy toward his supporters who stormed the Capitol in a failed bid to block Congress from certifying Democrat Joe Biden's 2020 election victory over him, and by saying he would consider pardoning them if re-elected.
A federal judge in June dismissed Castro's lawsuit, finding that he had failed to show a legal injury, which prompted Castro to appeal both to the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.
Trump, the front-runner in the race for the Republican nomination to challenge Biden in 2024, has continued to make the false claim that the 2020 election was stolen from him through widespread voting fraud.
Other legal efforts to disqualify Trump based on the 14th Amendment are underway including a Sept. 6 lawsuit filed by the nonpartisan group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington to try to block Trump from appearing on the presidential ballot in Colorado if he wins the Republican nomination.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
If a state supreme court disqualifies Trump, the SCOTUS will take the case and IMO will be reluctant to reverse the state disqualification because of the 2/3 majority rule in both houses for reinstatement, provided there is a case against Trump and there is a very strong one. What arguments could Trump mount against disqualification? Considering the civil law standard of evidence required. I'm pretty sure Colorado will disqualify him under their state law and the standing required there. If a secretary of state dug in their heels over disqualifying him over 14th, if the SCOTUS didn't concur, would cause a constitutional crisis over the plain text of article 3 of the 14th. The federalist society has been very clear about their thinking on the matter and one of the two federalist society authors of the legal article calling for disqualification was a founder of the federalist society. All the conservative justices are federalist society members and textual originalists, and he will get no love from the liberals on the court either.
If Trump is not disqualified by the end of the year I will be surprised and so will a lot of legal experts. Many in the GOP are hoping the courts will take care of Trump for them and Mitch would be dismayed.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I’m glad this one is still intact. Imagine the chaos if the standard were relaxed. The rich would sue the media outlets they don’t like, generating illiberal pressure. No wonder Justice Crow dissents.
amp.cnn.com
Supreme Court declines to revisit landmark libel ruling, though Clarence Thomas wants to reconsider the decision | CNN Politics
The Supreme Court declined on Tuesday to revisit the landmark First Amendment decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, rebuffing a request to take another look at decades-old precedent that created a higher bar for public figures to claim libel in civil suits.
printer
Well-Known Member
Supreme Court adds second case in battle over Chevron doctrine
The Supreme Court on Friday added a second case as it considers overruling a decades-old doctrine that gives executive agencies wide authority to enact regulations, enabling all nine justices to vote on the consequential issue.
The court previously agreed to hear a near-identical case, but Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is recusing herself.
By taking up the second case, she will now join her eight colleagues in deciding whether to overturn the Chevron doctrine, which instructs courts to defer to agencies’ interpretations on issues where Congress was silent or ambiguous.
The brief, unsigned order sets up both cases to be heard in tandem in January 2024. Decisions are expected by next summer.
A bedrock of administrative law, the precedent has given agencies broad powers to implement regulations in policy areas across the board, including the environment, public health and consumer protection.
But several of the Supreme Court’s conservatives have voiced skepticism that Chevron is constitutionally sound.
In several recent disputes, the high court has simply avoided the deference by using carveouts and other legal doctrines. The pair of cases now raise a stronger possibility that Chevron will become a bygone era, which would effectively take a sledgehammer to executive agencies’ power.
The Supreme Court earlier this year agreed to consider the issue head on, taking up a case from a herring fishing company. The case, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, concerns the company’s fight against a regulation that requires Loper Bright to pay for federal observers aboard their boats. A lower court upheld the regulation under the Chevron doctrine.
Jackson, a member of the court’s liberal wing, is recusing herself, seemingly because she previously served on a lower court that heard the case at the time.
The new case, Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, originates from the same fishing boat observer regulation and alleviates the recusal issue.
“As to the Chevron issue, this case travels with Loper Bright. While the vessels differ, the statute and the regulation at issue are the same. The wrongful application of Chevron is also the same,” the fishing company wrote to the justices.
In an unusual move, the Supreme Court had sped up consideration of the petition, enabling the justices to take up the case sooner than the normal timeline.
The Biden administration, which is defending Chevron deference, asked the Supreme Court to hold the Relentless case until it decides the first one, raising concerns about how adding it could impact timing, given that written briefs were already submitted in the first case.
“Granting review in this case thus would be superfluous and could delay the resolution of Loper Bright,” the Justice Department wrote in court filings.
thehill.com
The Supreme Court on Friday added a second case as it considers overruling a decades-old doctrine that gives executive agencies wide authority to enact regulations, enabling all nine justices to vote on the consequential issue.
The court previously agreed to hear a near-identical case, but Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is recusing herself.
By taking up the second case, she will now join her eight colleagues in deciding whether to overturn the Chevron doctrine, which instructs courts to defer to agencies’ interpretations on issues where Congress was silent or ambiguous.
The brief, unsigned order sets up both cases to be heard in tandem in January 2024. Decisions are expected by next summer.
A bedrock of administrative law, the precedent has given agencies broad powers to implement regulations in policy areas across the board, including the environment, public health and consumer protection.
But several of the Supreme Court’s conservatives have voiced skepticism that Chevron is constitutionally sound.
In several recent disputes, the high court has simply avoided the deference by using carveouts and other legal doctrines. The pair of cases now raise a stronger possibility that Chevron will become a bygone era, which would effectively take a sledgehammer to executive agencies’ power.
The Supreme Court earlier this year agreed to consider the issue head on, taking up a case from a herring fishing company. The case, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, concerns the company’s fight against a regulation that requires Loper Bright to pay for federal observers aboard their boats. A lower court upheld the regulation under the Chevron doctrine.
Jackson, a member of the court’s liberal wing, is recusing herself, seemingly because she previously served on a lower court that heard the case at the time.
The new case, Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, originates from the same fishing boat observer regulation and alleviates the recusal issue.
“As to the Chevron issue, this case travels with Loper Bright. While the vessels differ, the statute and the regulation at issue are the same. The wrongful application of Chevron is also the same,” the fishing company wrote to the justices.
In an unusual move, the Supreme Court had sped up consideration of the petition, enabling the justices to take up the case sooner than the normal timeline.
The Biden administration, which is defending Chevron deference, asked the Supreme Court to hold the Relentless case until it decides the first one, raising concerns about how adding it could impact timing, given that written briefs were already submitted in the first case.
“Granting review in this case thus would be superfluous and could delay the resolution of Loper Bright,” the Justice Department wrote in court filings.
Supreme Court adds second case in battle over Chevron doctrine
The Supreme Court on Friday added a second case as it considers overruling a decades-old doctrine that gives executive agencies wide authority to enact regulations, enabling all nine justices to vo…
thehill.com
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
We don't need no stink'n big guberment food and meat inspections FREEDUMB!Supreme Court adds second case in battle over Chevron doctrine
The Supreme Court on Friday added a second case as it considers overruling a decades-old doctrine that gives executive agencies wide authority to enact regulations, enabling all nine justices to vote on the consequential issue.
The court previously agreed to hear a near-identical case, but Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is recusing herself.
By taking up the second case, she will now join her eight colleagues in deciding whether to overturn the Chevron doctrine, which instructs courts to defer to agencies’ interpretations on issues where Congress was silent or ambiguous.
The brief, unsigned order sets up both cases to be heard in tandem in January 2024. Decisions are expected by next summer.
A bedrock of administrative law, the precedent has given agencies broad powers to implement regulations in policy areas across the board, including the environment, public health and consumer protection.
But several of the Supreme Court’s conservatives have voiced skepticism that Chevron is constitutionally sound.
In several recent disputes, the high court has simply avoided the deference by using carveouts and other legal doctrines. The pair of cases now raise a stronger possibility that Chevron will become a bygone era, which would effectively take a sledgehammer to executive agencies’ power.
The Supreme Court earlier this year agreed to consider the issue head on, taking up a case from a herring fishing company. The case, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, concerns the company’s fight against a regulation that requires Loper Bright to pay for federal observers aboard their boats. A lower court upheld the regulation under the Chevron doctrine.
Jackson, a member of the court’s liberal wing, is recusing herself, seemingly because she previously served on a lower court that heard the case at the time.
The new case, Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, originates from the same fishing boat observer regulation and alleviates the recusal issue.
“As to the Chevron issue, this case travels with Loper Bright. While the vessels differ, the statute and the regulation at issue are the same. The wrongful application of Chevron is also the same,” the fishing company wrote to the justices.
In an unusual move, the Supreme Court had sped up consideration of the petition, enabling the justices to take up the case sooner than the normal timeline.
The Biden administration, which is defending Chevron deference, asked the Supreme Court to hold the Relentless case until it decides the first one, raising concerns about how adding it could impact timing, given that written briefs were already submitted in the first case.
“Granting review in this case thus would be superfluous and could delay the resolution of Loper Bright,” the Justice Department wrote in court filings.
Supreme Court adds second case in battle over Chevron doctrine
The Supreme Court on Friday added a second case as it considers overruling a decades-old doctrine that gives executive agencies wide authority to enact regulations, enabling all nine justices to vo…
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Conservative justices suggest South Carolina GOP gerrymandering was based on politics, not race | CNN Politics
The Supreme Court’s conservatives expressed doubt at oral arguments Wednesday that South Carolina GOP lawmakers engaged in impermissible racial gerrymandering when they redrew congressional lines for a House seat to benefit Republicans.
printer
Well-Known Member
"Well how did that get there?"Conservative justices suggest South Carolina GOP gerrymandering was based on politics, not race | CNN Politics
The Supreme Court’s conservatives expressed doubt at oral arguments Wednesday that South Carolina GOP lawmakers engaged in impermissible racial gerrymandering when they redrew congressional lines for a House seat to benefit Republicans.
View attachment 5335258
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I wonder why they cannot simply rescind the rule about fisheries paying the observers and not dismantle the Chevron doctrine.Supreme Court adds second case in battle over Chevron doctrine
The Supreme Court on Friday added a second case as it considers overruling a decades-old doctrine that gives executive agencies wide authority to enact regulations, enabling all nine justices to vote on the consequential issue.
The court previously agreed to hear a near-identical case, but Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is recusing herself.
By taking up the second case, she will now join her eight colleagues in deciding whether to overturn the Chevron doctrine, which instructs courts to defer to agencies’ interpretations on issues where Congress was silent or ambiguous.
The brief, unsigned order sets up both cases to be heard in tandem in January 2024. Decisions are expected by next summer.
A bedrock of administrative law, the precedent has given agencies broad powers to implement regulations in policy areas across the board, including the environment, public health and consumer protection.
But several of the Supreme Court’s conservatives have voiced skepticism that Chevron is constitutionally sound.
In several recent disputes, the high court has simply avoided the deference by using carveouts and other legal doctrines. The pair of cases now raise a stronger possibility that Chevron will become a bygone era, which would effectively take a sledgehammer to executive agencies’ power.
The Supreme Court earlier this year agreed to consider the issue head on, taking up a case from a herring fishing company. The case, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, concerns the company’s fight against a regulation that requires Loper Bright to pay for federal observers aboard their boats. A lower court upheld the regulation under the Chevron doctrine.
Jackson, a member of the court’s liberal wing, is recusing herself, seemingly because she previously served on a lower court that heard the case at the time.
The new case, Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, originates from the same fishing boat observer regulation and alleviates the recusal issue.
“As to the Chevron issue, this case travels with Loper Bright. While the vessels differ, the statute and the regulation at issue are the same. The wrongful application of Chevron is also the same,” the fishing company wrote to the justices.
In an unusual move, the Supreme Court had sped up consideration of the petition, enabling the justices to take up the case sooner than the normal timeline.
The Biden administration, which is defending Chevron deference, asked the Supreme Court to hold the Relentless case until it decides the first one, raising concerns about how adding it could impact timing, given that written briefs were already submitted in the first case.
“Granting review in this case thus would be superfluous and could delay the resolution of Loper Bright,” the Justice Department wrote in court filings.
Supreme Court adds second case in battle over Chevron doctrine
The Supreme Court on Friday added a second case as it considers overruling a decades-old doctrine that gives executive agencies wide authority to enact regulations, enabling all nine justices to vo…
Unless of course the whole point is to increase the power of this court, because liberals.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
The first district’s boundaries are so straightforward, after all. Wonder why they surgically excised Charleston, hmmmm.
printer
Well-Known Member
Supreme Court won’t reinstate Missouri gun law as Thomas dissents
The Supreme Court declined to reinstate a Missouri law that prevents local police from working with the federal government to enforce certain gun laws.
The justices on Friday sided with the Biden administration in denying the Republican-led state’s emergency application to put the law back into effect while a legal challenge proceeds in a lower court.
Justice Clarence Thomas publicly dissented. Two of his fellow conservative justices who voted to deny Missouri’s request said they believe private parties can still enforce the law.
The case could ultimately return to the high court on the merits.
Missouri passed the Second Amendment Preservation Act in June 2021, declaring that limitations on gun transfers and firearm registrations, among others, are unconstitutional.
Police as well as other state and local government employees are barred from enforcing provisions the law deems invalid. Violations can carry a $50,000 civil fine.
The Biden administration last year sued over Missouri’s law, arguing it is unconstitutional, and a federal district judge agreed in March.
But the law remained in effect until late last month, when the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a single-sentence order denied Missouri’s request for a stay as their appeal proceeds.
The state then went to the Supreme Court to revive the law, insisting it is constitutional and that the Biden administration has no standing, meaning their legal right to sue.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, in a statement joined by fellow conservative Justice Samuel Alito, suggested private parties can still enforce the law.
“With the understanding that the district court ‘prohibited’ only ‘implementation and enforcement’ of H. B. 85 by the State of ‘Missouri and its officers, agents, and employees’ and ‘any others in active concert with such individuals,’…I agree with the denial of the application for a stay under the present circumstances,” Gorsuch wrote.
He continued, “An injunction purporting to bind private parties not before the district court or the ‘challenged’ provisions ‘themselves,’ however, would be inconsistent with the ‘equitable powers of federal courts.’”
Missouri cited the 8th Circuit’s lack of explanation, contending that the state would suffer irreparable harm if the law remains off the books.
“So except for the 24-hour period between when the district court entered its order and its administrative stay and the two business days between the Eighth Circuit issuing its one-line order and Missouri filing this application, Missouri’s law has been allowed to stay in effect for more than two years. By issuing a stay, this Court would maintain the status quo,” the state wrote to the justices.
The Biden administration, which contends the law is unconstitutional for multiple reasons, urged the Supreme Court to stay out of the case and said it didn’t warrant the high court’s rare emergency intervention.
“The Missouri Legislature is free to express its opinions about the Second Amendment, and it is also free to prohibit state and local officials from assisting in the enforcement of federal law. But it is not free to purport to nullify federal statutes; to direct state officials and courts to treat those statutes as invalid and to protect against their enforcement; or to regulate and discriminate against federal officials enforcing those statutes,” the Justice Department wrote in court filings.
“This Court should not grant extraordinary emergency relief to allow Missouri to resume implementation of that nullificationist scheme,” the filing continued.
thehill.com
The Supreme Court declined to reinstate a Missouri law that prevents local police from working with the federal government to enforce certain gun laws.
The justices on Friday sided with the Biden administration in denying the Republican-led state’s emergency application to put the law back into effect while a legal challenge proceeds in a lower court.
Justice Clarence Thomas publicly dissented. Two of his fellow conservative justices who voted to deny Missouri’s request said they believe private parties can still enforce the law.
The case could ultimately return to the high court on the merits.
Missouri passed the Second Amendment Preservation Act in June 2021, declaring that limitations on gun transfers and firearm registrations, among others, are unconstitutional.
Police as well as other state and local government employees are barred from enforcing provisions the law deems invalid. Violations can carry a $50,000 civil fine.
The Biden administration last year sued over Missouri’s law, arguing it is unconstitutional, and a federal district judge agreed in March.
But the law remained in effect until late last month, when the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a single-sentence order denied Missouri’s request for a stay as their appeal proceeds.
The state then went to the Supreme Court to revive the law, insisting it is constitutional and that the Biden administration has no standing, meaning their legal right to sue.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, in a statement joined by fellow conservative Justice Samuel Alito, suggested private parties can still enforce the law.
“With the understanding that the district court ‘prohibited’ only ‘implementation and enforcement’ of H. B. 85 by the State of ‘Missouri and its officers, agents, and employees’ and ‘any others in active concert with such individuals,’…I agree with the denial of the application for a stay under the present circumstances,” Gorsuch wrote.
He continued, “An injunction purporting to bind private parties not before the district court or the ‘challenged’ provisions ‘themselves,’ however, would be inconsistent with the ‘equitable powers of federal courts.’”
Missouri cited the 8th Circuit’s lack of explanation, contending that the state would suffer irreparable harm if the law remains off the books.
“So except for the 24-hour period between when the district court entered its order and its administrative stay and the two business days between the Eighth Circuit issuing its one-line order and Missouri filing this application, Missouri’s law has been allowed to stay in effect for more than two years. By issuing a stay, this Court would maintain the status quo,” the state wrote to the justices.
The Biden administration, which contends the law is unconstitutional for multiple reasons, urged the Supreme Court to stay out of the case and said it didn’t warrant the high court’s rare emergency intervention.
“The Missouri Legislature is free to express its opinions about the Second Amendment, and it is also free to prohibit state and local officials from assisting in the enforcement of federal law. But it is not free to purport to nullify federal statutes; to direct state officials and courts to treat those statutes as invalid and to protect against their enforcement; or to regulate and discriminate against federal officials enforcing those statutes,” the Justice Department wrote in court filings.
“This Court should not grant extraordinary emergency relief to allow Missouri to resume implementation of that nullificationist scheme,” the filing continued.
Supreme Court won’t reinstate Missouri gun law as Thomas dissents
The Supreme Court declined to reinstate a Missouri law that prevents local police from working with the federal government to enforce certain gun laws. The justices Friday sided with the Biden admi…
thehill.com
printer
Well-Known Member
Supreme Court will hear Biden social media case this term
The Supreme Court said Friday it will consider a social media censorship case brought against Biden administration officials in its next term, setting up a legal battle with resounding implications for online speech.
The high court also issued a stay in an injunction ordered by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, pausing its effect until the justices decide the case on its merits. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented in their decision to stay the order.
“At this time in the history of our country, what the Court has done, I fear, will be seen by some as giving the Government a green light to use heavy-handed tactics to skew the presentation of views on the medium that increasingly dominates the dissemination of news,” Alito wrote in his dissenting opinion. “That is most unfortunate.”
The Supreme Court’s decision follows an unusual series of orders in the 5th Circuit.
A three-person panel in September determined that the Biden administration likely violated the First Amendment by urging social media companies to take down specific content. They ruled that federal agencies cannot “coerce” social media platforms to remove posts countering the government’s stance.
Originally, the White House, FBI and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were found by the panel to have crossed the line into coercion, while the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and State Department did not.
However, after the Justice Department requested a stay from the Supreme Court, the Republican attorneys general who brought the case asked the appeals court to rehear it, in hopes of broadening the its decision.
Without allowing time for the DOJ to reply, the appeals court granted the attorneys general’s request Monday — a move that the government called “unreasoned” in a renewed stay request to the Supreme Court Tuesday.
Then, later Tuesday, the 5th Circuit put its injunction on hold and withdrew its order granting a rehearing. A spokesperson for the court told The Hill the first order was based on a “misunderstanding of the court’s directions” and that the follow-up order “corrected that mistake.”
After rehearing the case, the appeals court determined earlier this month that CISA did overstep, barring the cybersecurity defense agency from acting to “coerce or significantly encourage” tech companies to remove certain content.
The Republican attorney generals brought the case in a challenge to the Biden administration’s efforts to curb misinformation online, which they called a “campaign of censorship” by the government.
A federal judge sided with them in July, blocking government officials from contacting social media companies over “any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech posted on social-media platforms.”
The 5th Circuit’s decision sharply narrowed that ruling.
thehill.com
The Supreme Court said Friday it will consider a social media censorship case brought against Biden administration officials in its next term, setting up a legal battle with resounding implications for online speech.
The high court also issued a stay in an injunction ordered by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, pausing its effect until the justices decide the case on its merits. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented in their decision to stay the order.
“At this time in the history of our country, what the Court has done, I fear, will be seen by some as giving the Government a green light to use heavy-handed tactics to skew the presentation of views on the medium that increasingly dominates the dissemination of news,” Alito wrote in his dissenting opinion. “That is most unfortunate.”
The Supreme Court’s decision follows an unusual series of orders in the 5th Circuit.
A three-person panel in September determined that the Biden administration likely violated the First Amendment by urging social media companies to take down specific content. They ruled that federal agencies cannot “coerce” social media platforms to remove posts countering the government’s stance.
Originally, the White House, FBI and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were found by the panel to have crossed the line into coercion, while the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and State Department did not.
However, after the Justice Department requested a stay from the Supreme Court, the Republican attorneys general who brought the case asked the appeals court to rehear it, in hopes of broadening the its decision.
Without allowing time for the DOJ to reply, the appeals court granted the attorneys general’s request Monday — a move that the government called “unreasoned” in a renewed stay request to the Supreme Court Tuesday.
Then, later Tuesday, the 5th Circuit put its injunction on hold and withdrew its order granting a rehearing. A spokesperson for the court told The Hill the first order was based on a “misunderstanding of the court’s directions” and that the follow-up order “corrected that mistake.”
After rehearing the case, the appeals court determined earlier this month that CISA did overstep, barring the cybersecurity defense agency from acting to “coerce or significantly encourage” tech companies to remove certain content.
The Republican attorney generals brought the case in a challenge to the Biden administration’s efforts to curb misinformation online, which they called a “campaign of censorship” by the government.
A federal judge sided with them in July, blocking government officials from contacting social media companies over “any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech posted on social-media platforms.”
The 5th Circuit’s decision sharply narrowed that ruling.
Supreme Court will hear Biden social media case this term
The Supreme Court said Friday it will consider a social media censorship case brought against Biden administration officials in its next term, setting up a legal battle with res…
thehill.com
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member