Explore

Supreme Court Reform Debates Intensify Amid Calls for Change

Supreme Court Reform Debates Intensify Amid Calls for Change

The Supreme Court is facing increased scrutiny and calls for reform following a contentious term that saw significant rulings on Congress's powers, the Voting Rights Act, and campaign finance regulations. Some Democrats are advocating for changes such as expanding the court or imposing term limits on justices to address what they see as a conservative supermajority. Other proposals include jurisdiction stripping to limit the types of cases the court can hear. A more radical suggestion involves ending or limiting the court's power of judicial review, a foundational aspect of its authority established in 1803. Legal experts like Harvard Law's Nikolas Bowie have proposed measures to reclaim some constitutional interpretive power for Congress, such as requiring a supermajority for the court to strike down federal laws.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse Proposes Supreme Court Biennial Appointments and Term Limits Act

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse Proposes Supreme Court Biennial Appointments and Term Limits Act

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse has introduced a new bill, the Supreme Court Biennial Appointments and Term Limits Act of 2026, which aims to alter the appointment schedule for U.S. Supreme Court justices. The bill, received on July 22, 2026, and currently supported by 10 cosponsors, proposes that the Supreme Court be composed of a Chief Justice and at least eight associate justices. It mandates that the President appoint one new justice, with Senate confirmation, during the first 120 days of the first and third years of each presidential term. The bill also outlines procedures for filling vacancies and defines terms such as 'permanent vacancy' and 'temporary absence'.

Justice Clarence Thomas' Free Luxury Travel Raises Ethical Concerns

Justice Clarence Thomas' Free Luxury Travel Raises Ethical Concerns

Justice Clarence Thomas has been receiving free luxury travel from billionaires, which has raised ethical concerns. These trips, which are not counted as income, are seen as perks that public servants like justices should pay for themselves. The travel includes visits to various locations such as the U.K., California, and Puerto Rico, often aligning with the justices' partisan interests. This issue is part of a broader discussion about the financial activities of Supreme Court justices, including lucrative book deals that have collectively earned them millions. The scrutiny is not just about the travel but also about the potential influence these benefits could have on judicial impartiality.

Deadline passes for Trump to ask Supreme Court to reconsider birthright citizenship ruling

Deadline passes for Trump to ask Supreme Court to reconsider birthright citizenship ruling

The deadline to ask the Supreme Court to reconsider President Donald Trump's loss on birthright citizenship has passed, with no new filing on the docket

Supreme Court Decision Expands Presidential Authority Over Independent Agencies, Raising Accountability Concerns

Supreme Court Decision Expands Presidential Authority Over Independent Agencies, Raising Accountability Concerns

The Supreme Court has issued a ruling in the case of Trump v. Slaughter, which significantly alters the balance of power between the executive branch and independent agencies. The 6-3 decision overturns the precedent set by Humphrey's Executor, thereby limiting statutory protections that previously prevented the president from removing certain independent agency heads without cause. This decision marks a pivotal shift in the American administrative state, allowing for greater presidential control over these agencies. Proponents of the ruling argue that it enhances constitutional accountability and enables presidents to more effectively implement their policy agendas. However, critics warn that this could lead to increased politicization and a weakening of institutional safeguards. The decision underscores the importance of democratic accountability and the role of Congress in providing oversight.

Maine's Super PAC Contribution Limits Challenged in Federal Appeals Court

Maine's Super PAC Contribution Limits Challenged in Federal Appeals Court

A federal appeals court in Boston is reviewing the constitutionality of Maine's campaign finance law, which limits contributions to super PACs to $5,000. The law, approved by 75% of Maine voters in 2024, is being challenged by two conservative PACs, Dinner Table Action and For Our Future, who argue it violates free speech rights. The case has potential national implications, as it addresses the influence of super PACs in elections and the balance between campaign finance regulation and First Amendment rights.

President Trump Seeks Supreme Court Reversal of $83M Carroll Judgment

President Trump Seeks Supreme Court Reversal of $83M Carroll Judgment

President Donald Trump has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn an $83 million judgment awarded to writer E. Jean Carroll, who accused him of defamation. Trump argues that his statements denying Carroll's sexual assault claims were made in his official capacity as president, thus entitling him to presidential immunity. This appeal follows a previous Supreme Court decision that declined to hear Trump's challenge to a separate verdict related to Carroll's allegations. Trump's legal team contends that the appeals court failed to properly address the issue of presidential immunity.

President Trump Appeals to Supreme Court to Overturn E. Jean Carroll's $83M Defamation Verdict

President Trump Appeals to Supreme Court to Overturn E. Jean Carroll's $83M Defamation Verdict

President Donald Trump has appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn an $83.3 million defamation verdict awarded to magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll. The appeal argues that as president, Trump is immune from litigation for actions taken while in office. This case marks the first instance where a court has imposed damages liability on a president for conduct in office. Trump's legal team contends that the appeals court failed to consider presidential immunity and that the verdict could have significant implications for future presidents. The appeal also questions whether the United States government should be the defendant instead of Trump.

Supreme Court Faces Scrutiny Over Emergency Docket Decisions

Supreme Court Faces Scrutiny Over Emergency Docket Decisions

The Supreme Court's use of the emergency docket, often referred to as the 'shadow docket,' has come under scrutiny during recent budget hearings. Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett addressed questions from Congress about the increasing number of emergency orders issued by the court. These orders, which are typically decided without full briefing or oral arguments, have significant implications for federal policies, particularly those initiated by President Trump's administration. The justices explained that the court must respond to every emergency application it receives, which has led to a growing docket influenced by external requests rather than the court's discretion.

Deadline Passes for Trump to Request Supreme Court Rehearing on Birthright Citizenship

Deadline Passes for Trump to Request Supreme Court Rehearing on Birthright Citizenship

The deadline for President Trump to request a Supreme Court rehearing on the rejection of his birthright citizenship restrictions has passed without any new filings. The Supreme Court's 6-3 decision in June struck down Trump's executive order, which aimed to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily. Despite Trump's initial vow to seek a rehearing, the 25-day window has closed. The court has not agreed to rehear an argued case in over 50 years, making the likelihood of a successful petition extremely low.

Judge James Ho Suggests Supreme Court Should Overturn Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

Judge James Ho Suggests Supreme Court Should Overturn Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

Judge James Ho of the Fifth Circuit has suggested that the Supreme Court should overturn its decision legalizing same-sex marriage, known as Obergefell v. Hodges. Ho, a Trump appointee and potential future Supreme Court nominee, made these remarks at an event hosted by the First Liberty Institute. He expressed that the Supreme Court was wrong to reject President Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship and criticized the court's handling of what he described as 'self-evident truths.' Ho referenced Justice Clarence Thomas's call to overturn the same-sex marriage ruling, noting that Thomas was alone in his stance and that the court currently lacks the necessary votes to reconsider the decision.

Trump administration asks Supreme Court to allow mail-in ballot restrictions

Trump administration asks Supreme Court to allow mail-in ballot restrictions

By Andrew Chung July 27 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to allow implementation nationwide of his executive order aimed at tightening rules for mail-in voting ahead of the November midterm elections that will decide ‌control of Congress.