Explore

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Dissents in RLUIPA Case, Citing Misconstruction of Constitutional Clauses

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Dissents in RLUIPA Case, Citing Misconstruction of Constitutional Clauses

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled 6-3 in Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety et al., determining that a Louisiana man cannot sue corrections officers for damages under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Jackson argued that the majority misconstrued the Constitution’s spending clause and necessary and proper clause. Her dissent referenced a 2008 paper by Professor Samuel Bagenstos, 'Spending Clause Litigation in the Roberts Court,' which predicted the Supreme Court would limit Congress’s conditional spending authority by restricting private parties’ ability to enforce funding conditions. The case centered on Damon Landor, a practicing Rastafarian whose religious convictions require him to keep his hair uncut. Despite informing officers of his religious beliefs and RLUIPA protections, his head was shaved upon transfer between correctiona...

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Reflects on Grandparents' Influence and Promise to Live as a Memorial

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Reflects on Grandparents' Influence and Promise to Live as a Memorial

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas became emotional while discussing a promise he made after the sudden deaths of his grandparents in 1983. During an on-stage discussion with Hoover Institution fellow Peter Robinson, Thomas shared that he decided to live his life as a memorial to theirs. He recounted being raised by his maternal grandparents in segregated Savannah, Georgia, after his father left when he was seven. His grandfather, Myers Anderson, had only nine months of formal education, and his grandmother, Christine Anderson, had only a sixth-grade education. Despite their limited formal schooling, Thomas emphasized that education was the 'crown jewel' for them. He described his grandmother as a 'saintly woman' and his grandfather as a 'great man' who instilled in him the values of self-reliance and hard work, rather than complaining about what one lacks. Thomas also noted that rediscovering economist Thomas Sowell's work gave him permission to think differently from other Black leaders, recognizing S...

Appeals court upholds block on US Justice Department subpoenas to NY AG James' office

Appeals court upholds block on US Justice Department subpoenas to NY AG James' office

By Luc Cohen NEW YORK, Aug 21 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court ruled on Friday that the Justice Department could not enforce subpoenas seeking information about cases pursued by New York Attorney General Letitia James because it had unlawfully installed an ally of President Donald Trump as a top

President Trump Petitions Supreme Court in 'Big Lie' Defamation Appeal Against CNN

President Trump Petitions Supreme Court in 'Big Lie' Defamation Appeal Against CNN

President Donald Trump has filed a petition with the Supreme Court, seeking to reinstate his defamation lawsuit against CNN. The lawsuit centers on CNN's use of the phrase 'big lie' in reference to his claims about the 2020 election. Trump argues that the network's use of this phrase was intended to associate him with Adolf Hitler and Nazi propaganda. This petition follows the Atlanta-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit's decision in March to decline his case. A three-judge panel of the appeals court had upheld a district judge’s ruling against Trump, with two of the three appellate judges and the district judge being Trump appointees. The lower courts dismissed the suit on the grounds that the statements were opinion, not factually false, and that Trump had not demonstrated 'actual malice' on CNN's part. The appellate panel also deemed Trump's claim that the term 'big lie' is clear enough to be a factual statement as 'untenable' and his other claims as 'meritless'.

Texas Court Reduces Alex Jones' Sandy Hook Damages to $1.5 Million

Texas Court Reduces Alex Jones' Sandy Hook Damages to $1.5 Million

A Texas court has significantly reduced a $50 million judgment against Infowars founder Alex Jones to $1.5 million. This ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by Sandy Hook parents Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis, who sued Jones for falsely claiming the 2012 school shooting was a hoax. The Texas 3rd Court of Appeals unanimously determined that the parents did not provide sufficient evidence to exceed the state's $750,000 cap on damages for each plaintiff. The appeals court concluded that the trial court judge had improperly allowed the parents to seek damages above this cap. Despite this reduction, the ruling does not impact a separate $1.4 billion judgment against Jones in Connecticut. Jones, who has filed for bankruptcy, continues to appeal the financial judgments against him.

The Supreme Court’s about to face an entirely new kind of voter discrimination

The Supreme Court’s about to face an entirely new kind of voter discrimination

No one knows what the Constitution’s 26th Amendment means.

Texas Families Petition Supreme Court to Block Law Requiring Ten Commandments in Classrooms

Texas Families Petition Supreme Court to Block Law Requiring Ten Commandments in Classrooms

Civil liberties groups, representing several Texas families, have submitted a legal filing to the Supreme Court, formally requesting the overturning of a lower court's decision that permits the state to mandate the display of the Ten Commandments in every public school classroom. Last year, Texas Republican lawmakers passed Senate Bill 10, which requires a poster-sized display of the religious doctrine. This law was challenged by families from various religious and nonreligious backgrounds, arguing it violates the First Amendment's religious freedom principles. While a federal district judge initially found the law unconstitutional, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals narrowly overturned that ruling in an en banc decision in April, asserting that Texas lawmakers could require such displays.

D.C. Circuit Grapples with Personal Jurisdiction in 'Foreign-Cubed' Cases Post-Fuld Decision

D.C. Circuit Grapples with Personal Jurisdiction in 'Foreign-Cubed' Cases Post-Fuld Decision

The D.C. Circuit Court, specifically Judge Patricia Millet, recently addressed the complexities of federal personal jurisdiction in a case involving foreign parties and events outside the United States. The case, Gligorov v. Nation of Brunei, saw the court affirm the dismissal of RICO claims against three corporate defendants due to a lack of personal jurisdiction. This decision follows the Supreme Court's 2025 ruling in Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization, which stated that the Fifth Amendment's personal jurisdiction analysis is 'necessarily... more flexible' than that of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Gligorov case presented a scenario where the Fourteenth Amendment's minimum contacts test would not be satisfied, forcing the court to navigate the implications of Fuld. The plaintiff, Goce Gligorov, a Slovenian national, sued Brunei and affiliated corporations, alleging corruption and terrorism financing, with the only U.S. connection being a single meeting in a Beverly Hills hotel. The district court...

Supreme Court's Birthright Citizenship Ruling in Trump v. Barbara Avoids Jurisprudential Limbo, Highlights Marks Rule Complexity

Supreme Court's Birthright Citizenship Ruling in Trump v. Barbara Avoids Jurisprudential Limbo, Highlights Marks Rule Complexity

In the case of Trump v. Barbara, the Supreme Court ruled that executive order 14160, which aimed to end birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants and temporary residents, was unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, and Barrett. Justice Kavanaugh partially dissented, arguing the executive order violated a statute, not the Constitution. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch fully dissented, supporting the executive order. This 5-4 decision provided a clear majority opinion, thereby avoiding a complex jurisprudential situation under the Marks rule, which applies when the Supreme Court fails to produce a majority opinion and the holding is determined by the narrowest grounds among concurring justices.

SCOTUSBlog Proposes Chief Justice Share Power with Associate Justices for Supreme Court Reform

SCOTUSBlog Proposes Chief Justice Share Power with Associate Justices for Supreme Court Reform

A new article published in SCOTUSBlog suggests that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court should delegate much of his power to the associate justices. The proposal, authored by Josh Blackman, argues that all justices should play an equal role in guiding the Court's future. Specifically, it recommends that the Chief Justice delegate presiding duties for oral arguments and private conferences to his colleagues. The article outlines various methods for this delegation, such as justices drawing numbers from a hat annually to select a presiding justice for a term, or rotating the presiding role for each sitting during a given term. A key aspect of this reform is allowing more justices to assign majority opinions, which would diversify the trajectory of the Court's rulings and prevent any single justice from disproportionately influencing the Court's agenda.

ICE Investigated Critic for Constitutionally Protected Speech, Agency Admits

ICE Investigated Critic for Constitutionally Protected Speech, Agency Admits

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has admitted to investigating David Streever, a critic of the agency, based on his constitutionally protected speech. This admission comes in response to a First Amendment lawsuit filed by Streever. The incident began on January 26, when Streever sent an email to Todd Lyons, then the acting ICE director, criticizing him following the fatal shooting of Minneapolis protester Alex Pretti by DHS agents. Streever's email, while harsh, did not contain any threats of violence. Despite this, Brent Goodwin, assistant director for investigations at ICE's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), claimed the email had 'potential threatening undertones' and 'potentially present[ed] a safety concern,' leading to an ICE investigation. On June 23, two DHS agents left a 'WARNING NOTICE' at Streever's home, citing federal statutes related to threats against federal officials and revealing 'restricted personal information,' neither of which Streever had violated. DHS agents also ...

Justice Sotomayor Denies Emergency Application Against NYC Zoning Restrictions

Justice Sotomayor Denies Emergency Application Against NYC Zoning Restrictions

Justice Sonia Sotomayor has denied an emergency application seeking to block New York City from implementing zoning restrictions against businesses that dedicate less than 40% of their operations to adult entertainment. These zoning restrictions were originally enacted in 2001 but had not been enforced. The application was filed by a group of New York City clubs, aiming to prevent the enforcement of these long-dormant regulations while their lawsuits against the city continued. This denial occurred without the application being referred to the full Supreme Court for consideration, a common practice for certain types of requests on the emergency docket. The case highlights the diverse range of matters that appear on the Supreme Court's emergency docket, which often includes lesser-known filings such as those concerning local ordinances, alongside more high-profile disputes over federal and state policies.