Tag: SCOTUS

Supreme Court weighs voting rights in a pivotal Arizona case

The Conversation Logo

Would you vote by mail if you had to drive hours to a post office to mail your ballot? That question confronts the United States Supreme Court this session in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, which analysts see as one of the most important voting rights cases in a decade. 

The case considers two Arizona laws that place limits on how and when Arizonans can vote. 

A state law passed in 2016, H.B. 2023, makes it a felony for anyone other than a family member, caregiver or postal worker to collect and deliver ballots. The second Arizona law in question requires ballots to be cast in the assigned precinct where a voter lives. If a voter casts a provisional ballot at the wrong polling place, election officials will reject it. Continue reading.

Conservative justices seem prepared to let Trump proceed with immigrant census plan for now

The Hill logo

The Supreme Court on Monday seemed reluctant to issue an immediate ruling that would halt President Trump’s plan to count — and later subtract — immigrants residing in the U.S. illegally from the once-per-decade population count. 

The court, which has a new 6-3 conservative majority due to Trump’s three appointments, appeared to signal that it would let the Trump administration tally at least some of the country’s undocumented population as part of the 2020 census.

But a majority seemed inclined to defer future challenges over how that data could be used to determine House seats among the states, a key part of taking the census and a motivator in the Trump administration’s desire to exclude undocumented workers from census counts. Continue reading.

Gorsuch questions law at the legal root of abortions in concurrence blocking limit on religious gatherings

AlterNet logo

On the night before Thanksgiving, as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s (D) COVID-19 executive orders to prohibit large church gatherings amid the pandemic, Justice Neil Gorsuch weighed in with a conservative stance condemning a number of key laws that do not align with his beliefs. 

According to Law and Crime, Gorsuch’s choice of words centered on a column of constitutional law — a passage highlighting “implied right to ‘bodily integrity.” Gorsuch opted to draw a major distinction between “rights explicitly granted by the Constitution (e.g., the First Amendment rights to speech and religion) and rights presumably read between the lines of the Constitution’s text,” per the publication.

Here is an excerpt of the statements in which Gorsuch referred to Jacobson v. Massachusetts to explain his logic: Continue reading.

Supreme Court declines to halt Trump border wall

The Hill logoThe Supreme Court on Friday declined to block the Trump administration from using $2.5 billion in reallocated Pentagon funds to build a U.S.-Mexico border wall.

In a 5-4 ruling that broke along ideological lines, the court’s conservative majority denied a bid by interest groups to halt construction after a federal appeals court last month said the use of defense funding for the project is illegal. The court’s four more liberal justices dissented from the ruling.

The Sierra Club, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other challengers had asked the justices to lift their order from last July that allowed President Trump to begin spending the funds while legal challenges proceeded through the courts. Continue reading.

Ginsburg discharged from hospital after nonsurgical procedure

The Hill logoJustice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was released from the hospital Friday after undergoing a “minimally invasive” nonsurgical procedure earlier this week.

“She is home and doing well,” Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said in a statement.

Ginsburg, 87, underwent a procedure Wednesday to revise a bile duct stent that was placed last August. Her doctors at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City said such procedures were “common occurrences” done to “minimize the risk of future infection.” Continue reading.

Supreme Court denies Democrats’ bid to fast-track ongoing fight for Trump financial records

The Hill logoThe Supreme Court on Monday denied a request by House Democrats to accelerate the timeline of remaining court battles over congressional subpoenas for President Trump’s tax returns.

The bid by lawmakers came in response to the court’s landmark 7-2 ruling earlier this month to shield a trove of Trump’s financial records from several Democratic-led House committees and return the dispute to lower courts for further litigation.

Under regular Supreme Court procedure, the ruling would reach the lower courts no earlier than Aug. 3, a delay Democrats sought to avoid by asking the justices to expedite the process. Continue reading.

Ginsburg undergoes another cancer treatment

Supreme Court justice is ‘tolerating chemotherapy well’

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg revealed Friday that she has been undergoing treatment for liver cancer, but that she plans to continue on the Supreme Court and “can do the job full steam.”

The health concerns of the consistently liberal 87-year-old justice, which have accelerated in recent years, arise at a critical political moment with a looming presidential election in November.

Ginsburg’s latest round with cancer could elevate Supreme Court appointments as a key campaign issue between Republican President Donald Trump and presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden. Continue reading.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg announces recurrence of cancer

Axios logoSupreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg announced Friday that she is in the midst of treating a recurrence of liver cancer, but said she remains “fully able” to fulfill her duties on the court.

The big picture: The 87-year-old has survived multiple bouts of cancer, amid a slew of health complications in recent years. Earlier this week, she was hospitalized due to an infection but was subsequently released.

  • Ginsburg said she began a course of chemotherapy in May after discovering the cancer in a scan in February.
  • She added that her most recent scan on July 7 “indicated significant reduction of the liver lesions and no new disease.” She also said that she is “tolerating chemotherapy well” and will continue biweekly treatments.
  • She noted that her hospitalization earlier this week was not linked to her cancer. Continue reading.

The past 24 hours in Trump legal issues and controversies, explained

Supreme Court decisions, closed-door testimony, and developments for Michael Flynn and Michael Cohen.

A pair of Supreme Court decisions related to President Donald Trump’s financial records and a closed-door hearing featuring a fired US attorney were just the start of an eventful day for Trump’s legal problems Thursday.

In an opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court ruled that a New York state grand jury does have the authority to investigate President Trump. The Court also ruled that congressional subpoena power to investigate the president should be limited — but not eliminated out of hand, as Trump hoped.

But as for whether Trump’s financial records will actually be turned over anytime soon, don’t hold your breath. Both of these cases were sent back to lower courts for further proceedings, and Trump’s legal team has promised to challenge them further. Continue reading.

Trump gets no special protections because he’s president and must release financial records, Supreme Court rules

In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that President Donald Trump has no immunity, by virtue of being president, from a state grand jury subpoena for his business and tax recordsin a criminal investigation by the Manhattan district attorney.

“[N]o citizen, not even the president, is categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in the majority opinion.

The court rejected the president’s claims that permitting subpoenas from state prosecutors would open the floodgates to prosecutors nationwide, distracting him from his presidential duties. It reiterated what the court had said in a previous case in which President Bill Clinton had tried to avoid giving a deposition, Clinton v. Jones: The Constitution does not require protecting the president from state grand jury subpoenas. Continue reading.