Supreme Court

Supreme Court Warns Defiant Rogue Judges: You’re Not Above the Law
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Warns Defiant Rogue Judges: You’re Not Above the Law

/

Justice Neil Gorsuch issued a pointed warning criticizing lower courts for repeatedly defying Supreme Court decisions in cases involving the Trump administration.

Gorsuch, writing in an opinion joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, said the Court’s decision allowing the administration to move forward with cutting millions in National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants was the “third time in a matter of weeks” that the justices had to overturn a lower court on an issue it had already addressed.

“Lower court judges may sometimes disagree with this Court’s decisions, but they are never free to defy them,” Gorsuch wrote.

The case before the Court involved the Trump administration’s decision to terminate NIH grants tied to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) and gender ideology-related programs.

Earlier in April, the Supreme Court had already upheld the administration’s move to end similar DEI-related teacher training grants.

Despite that ruling, a district court in June allowed a lawsuit over NIH grants to proceed.

That court relied on the opinions of dissenting justices and a previously rejected appellate ruling to justify blocking the administration’s termination of the grants.

Gorsuch said that approach violated one of the core promises of the legal system.

“If nothing else, the promise of our legal system that like cases are treated alike means that a lower court ought not invoke the ‘persuasive authority’ of a dissent or a repudiated court of appeals decision to reach a different conclusion on an equivalent record,” he wrote.

The justice stressed that the NIH case was not an isolated example.

He pointed to two other recent disputes where lower courts attempted to sidestep prior Supreme Court rulings on Trump administration policies.

In July, the Court issued a 7-2 ruling blocking a district court judge who tried to prevent the administration from resuming third-country deportations.

Even Justice Elena Kagan, who had dissented in the original case, sided with the conservative majority to enforce the Court’s earlier decision.

“I do not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this Court has stayed,” Kagan wrote at the time.

The same month, the justices struck down another lower court ruling that had blocked President Donald Trump’s removal of three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).

The Supreme Court had already upheld the president’s authority to remove agency officials in a similar case decided in May.

In its order regarding the CPSC case, the Court reiterated that emergency docket decisions are “not conclusive as to the merits” but must guide how lower courts handle similar disputes.

Gorsuch wrote that the repeated need for the justices to intervene underscored a fundamental rule of the judiciary.

“All these interventions should have been unnecessary, but together they underscore a basic tenet of our judicial system: Whatever their own views, judges are duty-bound to respect ‘the hierarchy of the federal court system created by the Constitution and Congress,’” he said.

The string of cases highlights ongoing friction between the Trump administration’s efforts to advance its policies and the willingness of some lower courts to block those moves, even after the Supreme Court has ruled.

Gorsuch’s opinion served as a warning that the justices will continue to enforce their authority if lower courts attempt to disregard binding precedent.

America First Legal Sues Chief Justice Roberts Over Lawfare- “You Can’t Have Your Cake And Eat It Too”
Supreme Court

America First Legal Sues Chief Justice Roberts Over Lawfare- “You Can’t Have Your Cake And Eat It Too”

/

Stephen Miller’s conservative legal advocacy group America First Legal Foundation (AFLF) has filed a lawsuit against Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Robert J. Conrad, in their official capacities as the Presiding Officer of the Judicial Conference; and Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, respectively, for allegedly violating federal transparency laws.

The lawsuit also accuses the duo of cozying up with far-left lawmakers to wage lawfare against conservative Supreme Court justices to undermine the independence of the Supreme Court.

The lawsuit stems from a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request the AFLF made regarding communications between the far-left lawmakers Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Rep. Hank Johnson and the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office. However, the policymaking bodies outrightly rejected the requests by claiming they were exempt from such FOIA demands.

Ironically, the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office have honored several “congressional oversight requests” by the far-Left lawmakers to aid them in going after Justices Thomas and Alito.

“When it comes to government transparency, you can’t have your cake and eat it too,” remarked Dan Epstein, America First Legal Vice President. 

According to the lawsuit, Sen. Whitehouse and Rep. Johnson have for several years waged lawfare against Supreme Court Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh, and in the process, enjoyed favorable legacy media coverage. Similarly, the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office have acted as the “central levers” for the lawmakers’ persistent lawfare campaign. 

“This lawfare has been led by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Representative Hank Johnson, relying upon an ideologically favorable legacy media to falsely accuse Justices Thomas and Alito of ethical improprieties. Their aim was simple: to chill the judicial independence of these Supreme Court Justices.”

The lawsuit explains that Whitehouse and Johnson have accused Justice Thomas of “acting willfully to violate the Ethics in Government Act and directed the U.S. Department of Justice to criminally investigate the matter.” Similarly, Sen. Johnson filed an ethics complaint against Justice Alito, accusing him of violating “several canons of judicial ethics.” The justices have been accused by far-left lawmakers of not being forthcoming about their financial relationships.

Meanwhile, AFLF argues that the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office must comply with FOIA requests because they are not part of the judiciary but the executive branch and exercise executive powers, including issuing binding regulations.

“Thus, the Judicial Conference and Administrative Office exercise executive functions and are accordingly subject to FOIA. Accordingly, their refusal to comply with AFL’s FOIA request is unlawful.”

It also argues that the two bodies should be declared “independent agencies within the executive branch” and the President should have the authority to appoint and remove the Judicial Conference’s Presiding Officer and the Director of the Administrative Office.

“Under our constitutional tradition, accommodations with Congress are the province of the executive branch. The Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office are therefore executive agencies. Such agencies must be overseen by the President, not the courts. Judicial relief here not only preserves the separation of powers but also keeps the courts out of politics.”

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Appears In Woke Broadway Musical
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Appears In Woke Broadway Musical

/

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson took a short break from her SCOTUS duties to appear in a Broadway musical over the weekend.

Jackson appeared in the Swedish musical “& Juliet”, which is described as a “modern” take on the William Shakespeare classic. In the adaptation, Juliet decides against killing herself, discovering Romeo’s affairs with both men and women while introducing the audience to her non-binary friend, May.

The liberal Justice previously wrote in her memoir that she wanted to “to fulfill my fantasy of becoming the first Black, female Supreme Court justice to appear on a Broadway stage” – something she has now achieved after her appearance on Saturday, Dec. 14.

She added in an interview with CBS that it was a chance to “remind people that justices are human beings” following the performance, emphasizing her desire to appear on Broadway.

You can see part of her performance below:

Some Americans, however, were less convinced, and were more concerned by whether the Supreme Court Justices should be more focused on their day jobs given delays in decision-making over the past year.

As cringey as it is, we’d still prefer her as an actress over her current profession – and many agreed, encouraging Jackson to pursue a career on Broadway in a bid to keep her as far away from the SCOTUS as possible.

SCOTUS Gives Go Ahead to Arizona Voter Citizenship Requirement
Supreme Court

SCOTUS Gives Go Ahead to Arizona Voter Citizenship Requirement

/

One of the strangest things in American politics is the partisan debate over the issue of whether voters should have to produce identification when they show up at the polls. Democrat politicos constantly argue against states that want to require ID to vote in elections, branding those efforts as “racist.” 

It’s never explained, of course, why asking for a driver’s license or state ID card disadvantages black or Hispanic voters.. But the way Democrats talk you’d think it was the equivalent of a poll tax designed to keep “po, ignunt” black folks from being able to exercise their franchise. 

But how? Do black people truly not have driver’s licenses? Is there something about being dark-skinned that makes it hard or impossible to get the standard ID that everyone uses daily to buy booze, or cigarettes, or any other adult item? Obviously not, but in a country where the left half is primed to see whites as devils fixin’ to git them blacks, it plays well. 

Vice President and now Democrat Party presidential nominee—she who has suddenly “become black” despite building her image on her Indian heritage on her mother’s side—Kamal Harris recently came under fire for requiring identification to enter one of her rallies in Phoenix. The least-popular vice president in history has a history of calling voter ID laws racist. 

Well, the worm has turned at the Supreme Court, which just issued a 5-4 decision allowing an even more “controversial” requirement to go forward in Arizona. SCOTUS said Arizona can force potential voters to prove that they are U.S. citizens if the would-be voter tries to register to vote using Arizona’s state form. 

Over 40,000 people are registered to vote in federal elections in Arizona who haven’t provided proof of citizenship.

The vote was 5-4 on allowing limited enforcement of the law. One conservative Justice, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined the three liberal justices in dissent. The court, in a brief order, did not explain its reasoning for how four justices could possibly take this stance.

It’s incredible that such an issue had to be litigated all the way to the Supreme Court. It raises the question: “Who thinks there’s something wrong with making sure illegal aliens don’t vote in U.S. elections?” Democrats, that’s who.

Let’s look at what social media users have to say about it on X (formerly Twitter). 

It’s hard to argue against this guy’s point:

It boggles the rational mind:

We’d like to agree with this next one, and in a sane world, she would be right. But when one side of the aisle sees illegal aliens as a means to getting more Congressional seats when the census comes (did you know that districting is done off census numbers, which count and include everyone, even illegal aliens?), it’s easy to see why Democrats don’t like proof of citizenship laws. 


Scroll to Top