Search

The Supreme Court has denied President-elect Donald Trump's request to block his sentencing in a hush-money case involving adult-film star Stormy Daniels. The court's decision allows for a court proceeding in New York that will result in Trump being branded as a felon. Trump's legal objections were dismissed, and the trial judge indicated that the president-elect won't face punishment for his crimes. The case stemmed from Trump's actions as a private citizen, but evidence introduced included post-election dealings to suppress damaging information. [Extracted from the article]

Keywords: election2024; photo-illo; wsjwashington; North America; United States; Washington DC; Southern U.S.; Political/General News; Crime/Legal Action; Politics/International RelationsHow about Democrats for a Trump nominee? If a high-court vacancy occurs in a split government, lawmakers foresee a standoffBy Jess Bravin and Lindsay WiseReported by Author; Author [Extracted from the article]

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

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

The Supreme Court has ruled 6-3 that former presidents, including Donald Trump, have broad immunity from prosecution for their actions while in office. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the president is entitled to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all official acts. The decision was split along partisan lines, with five Republican-appointed justices siding with Trump and three Democratic-appointed justices dissenting. President Biden condemned the decision, warning that it sets a dangerous precedent and allows presidents to have virtually no limits on their actions. The court also threw out parts of the prosecution's case against Trump, making it difficult to hold a trial before the upcoming election. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court has made a significant decision that curbs federal regulatory power. In a 6-3 ruling, the court abandoned a 1984 precedent known as Chevron deference, which directed federal courts to defer to agency legal interpretations when the statutory language passed by Congress is ambiguous. The decision expands the power of federal judges to overturn agency decisions in areas such as environmental, consumer, and workplace safety policy. The ruling has been seen as part of a series of decisions by the Roberts Court that limit federal power, and it gives businesses and property owners more opportunities to challenge regulations. However, dissenting justices argue that the decision diminishes the role of expert agencies and reduces democratic accountability. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) violated the Constitution by using in-house tribunals to impose monetary penalties. The decision, split along ideological lines, stated that the SEC's use of administrative proceedings violated the right to a jury trial. This ruling is seen as a victory for legal conservatives and defense attorneys who have sought to weaken the SEC's power. The decision may have broader implications for other federal agencies with in-house courts. In a separate ruling, the court blocked an Environmental Protection Agency plan to cut air pollution that drifts across state lines. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court accidentally posted a draft version of a decision on its website suggesting that it will allow emergency abortions to be performed in Idaho, despite the state's near-total ban on the procedure. The draft decision dismisses Idaho's appeal of a lower court order that temporarily permitted emergency abortions under federal law. The court's opinion has not been released, and the document showed a deeply divided court on the issue. The decision to dismiss the case at this stage also garnered the votes of liberal justices, while conservative justices agreed that the court was avoiding a tough choice. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court has upheld a federal law that prohibits domestic abusers from owning guns, ruling that the Second Amendment allows for the temporary disarming of individuals who pose a threat to others. The case was the first major test of the conservative majority's new approach to gun rights, which requires that weapons regulations be analogous to those familiar to Americans during the founding era. The ruling reverses a federal appeals court decision that invalidated a 1994 law denying firearms to people under domestic-violence restraining orders. The decision is seen as a victory for gun control advocates and may make it easier for other gun laws to withstand constitutional challenges. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court has upheld a one-time tax on certain foreign investments, rejecting a challenge from conservative activists. The tax on accumulated foreign profits, created in 2017 as part of former President Donald Trump's tax law, remains intact. The court's decision leaves open questions about the constitutionality of other revenue-raising ideas proposed by Democrats, such as taxing wealth and unrealized capital gains. The ruling has implications for the broader tax system and the government's taxing power. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court has overturned a ban on bump stocks, ruling that the Justice Department exceeded its authority by classifying the device as a machine gun. Bump stocks modify semiautomatic weapons to fire rapidly, but the court found that they do not convert the weapons into machine guns. The ban was put in place after a 2017 massacre in Las Vegas, but the court determined that the government had stretched the definition of a machine gun. The decision was split 6-3, with dissenting justices arguing that bump stocks should be considered machine guns. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court has unanimously rejected an effort to restrict access to the abortion pill mifepristone, preserving the widespread availability of this common method for ending pregnancies in the United States. The case, brought by a Christian conservative group, focused on procedural questions rather than the merits of the drug itself. The court ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue and left open the possibility of future legal challenges regarding the drug's availability and safety. This decision is seen as a win for the Biden administration and abortion-rights groups, but the court still has another abortion-related case pending. [Extracted from the article]

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

The Supreme Court has rejected a conservative challenge to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), ruling that Congress has the authority to protect the agency's funding from political interference. The CFPB, which was created to safeguard consumer welfare, has faced criticism from conservative activists and business groups. The court's decision suggests that justices from across the ideological spectrum support the bureau's place in the regulatory system. The ruling will allow the CFPB to proceed with enforcement lawsuits that were previously frozen. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court is considering whether former President Donald Trump can be prosecuted for alleged crimes committed while in office, specifically charges that he conspired to steal the 2020 presidential election. The court's conservative majority expressed concern that prosecuting ex-presidents could deter bold action by future presidents, while liberal justices argued that holding the president above the law would undermine democracy. Trump's lawyer argued for "absolute immunity," but most justices agreed that former presidents should have strong protection from prosecution. The court's decision, expected by the end of June, could delay or end Trump's trial and impact other prosecutions he is facing. [Extracted from the article]

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

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

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

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

The Supreme Court is likely to reject a bid by GOP-led states to limit the federal government's ability to urge social media companies to remove misleading or disinformation posts, unless there is a threat of official retribution. The case was filed by Republican attorneys general and individuals who claimed that platforms like Facebook suppressed their views on vaccines and lockdowns during the Covid-19 pandemic. The lower courts have mostly sided with the plaintiffs, but during oral arguments, the Supreme Court expressed more sympathy with the Biden administration's defense. The justices questioned whether the plaintiffs had suffered harm and whether the government's interactions with the platforms constituted official restraint. [Extracted from the article]

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

The Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether former President Donald Trump can claim presidential immunity in a case involving his alleged plot to overturn the 2020 election. Lower courts had previously rejected Trump's claim of absolute immunity due to his status as president at the time. The court's decision means that any trial will be delayed, with oral arguments scheduled for April and a decision likely before July. Trump is also facing a separate criminal trial in New York for alleged falsification of business records. [Extracted from the article]

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

The Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the constitutionality of state laws in Florida and Texas that aim to prevent online platforms like Facebook and YouTube from moderating user posts. The court seemed skeptical of these laws, with justices expressing doubts about whether social media should be treated as an edited publication or a common carrier. The cases could have significant implications for free speech protections online. Trade groups representing Meta, Google, and Twitter sued the states, arguing that the laws infringe on their First Amendment rights. The court's decisions are expected before July. [Extracted from the article]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Supreme Court is currently considering a $6 billion settlement between Purdue Pharma, the company behind the addictive painkiller OxyContin, and victims of the opioid crisis. The settlement would provide compensation to survivors in exchange for granting the wealthy Sackler family, who own Purdue Pharma, immunity from future civil lawsuits. While nearly all victims agreed to the settlement, some argue that federal law does not permit settlements that prevent creditors from seeking assets that were not protected in bankruptcy proceedings. The Supreme Court is now deliberating on whether the settlement should be upheld. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court heard arguments regarding whether unrealized income could be taxed, but it seemed unlikely that they would impose strict new limits on Congress's power to tax income. The case involved a small payment required by a one-time charge under the 2017 tax overhaul, and challengers sought a ruling limiting income that can be taxed to money "realized" by taxpayers. Conservative groups behind the case hoped to narrow the definition of taxable income, but several justices expressed concerns about the potential effects on existing statutes and the broader implications for investors, tax advisers, and businesses. The court may sidestep the question by holding that Congress has the authority to attribute a company's unrealized income to its shareholders. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case of Moore v. U.S., which challenges a provision of the 2017 tax law that imposed a one-time levy on profits accumulated by companies outside the U.S. The case raises the question of whether income must be realized before it can be taxed. If the Moores win, it could create a constitutional barrier against taxing wealth or unrealized capital gains, potentially impacting popular Democratic proposals to tax the superrich. A sweeping ruling could also have implications for partnerships, multinational companies, and bond investors. [Extracted from the article]

Sandra Day O'Connor, the first female Supreme Court justice in the United States, passed away at the age of 93. O'Connor was known for her pragmatic approach and often cast the deciding vote in cases where the court was divided along ideological lines. Her opinions on issues such as abortion, affirmative action, and voting rights reflected a middle ground that aligned with mainstream public opinion. However, since her retirement in 2006, the court has taken a more conservative direction, with justices focused on formal theories of constitutional interpretation. Many of O'Connor's influential opinions have been overturned by the current court, leading to a decline in public approval of the institution. Despite her conservative background, O'Connor's approach was shaped by her experience in politics and her belief in building consensus. Her legacy as a moderate voice in the court is seen as increasingly rare in today's polarized legal landscape. [Extracted from the article]

The Senate Judiciary Committee has approved subpoenas for two conservative figures, Harlan Crow and Leonard Leo, who have allegedly provided luxury travel for two Supreme Court justices. The committee, led by Democrats, is continuing its ethics investigation of the court despite the code of conduct issued by the justices in November. Republicans walked out of the committee room rather than vote on the subpoena resolution. Crow and Leo have resisted the committee's requests for records related to gifts and travel provided to the justices. [Extracted from the article]

Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court, has passed away at the age of 93. Appointed by President Reagan, she served on the court for nearly 25 years and was known as its most powerful justice. O'Connor was a trailblazer for women in the early 1980s and played a pivotal role in shaping the court's decisions. She was praised for her determination, ability, and candor. O'Connor's pragmatic approach to judging often put her at odds with more conservative justices, and some of her most significant opinions have been overturned by the current court. She retired in 2006 and continued to be active in public life until her battle with dementia forced her to withdraw. O'Connor's legacy as a champion for civics education and judicial independence will not be forgotten. [Extracted from the article]