Explore

Justice Alito's New Book Explores Originalism and Judicial Philosophy

Justice Alito's New Book Explores Originalism and Judicial Philosophy

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. has released a new book, 'So Ordered: An Originalist’s View of the Constitution, the Court, and Our Country (2026),' positioning him as a leading public intellectual on the Supreme Court, similar to the late Justice Antonin Scalia. In his book, Justice Alito discusses various topics including originalism, textualism in statutory interpretation, the Catholic intellectual tradition, the role of judges, religious liberty, and threats to the Constitution. A key theme is his commitment to originalism, even if it means overturning long-standing precedents he views as 'bad law,' such as Roe v. Wade or United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which dealt with birthright citizenship. He also rejects the idea of judicial restraint when the Supreme Court has wrongly deferred to the political process, citing cases like Plessy v. Ferguson and Korematsu v. United States as examples of tragic results. Conversely, he criticizes judicial activism seen in cases like Dred Scott v. Sanford or Lochner v. New ...

Democrats have gained control in more states. That could change the way the US elects its president

Democrats have gained control in more states. That could change the way the US elects its president

Last week's big Democratic wins could change the way the U.S. elects its president

Supreme Court sounds ready to further limit prisoner lawsuits

Supreme Court sounds ready to further limit prisoner lawsuits

The Supreme Court could further curtail the already limited ability to seek damages from a federal employee for violating someone's rights.

Impeachment isn't only for presidents. How does the process work for Cabinet secretaries?

Impeachment isn't only for presidents. How does the process work for Cabinet secretaries?

The Constitution allows Congress to impeach and remove federal officials, including Cabinet secretaries

NetChoice to Petition Supreme Court Over Georgia Social Media Age Verification Law

NetChoice to Petition Supreme Court Over Georgia Social Media Age Verification Law

NetChoice, a tech industry group, plans to ask the Supreme Court to block Georgia's Protecting Georgia's Children on Social Media Act (SB 351). This law mandates age verification for social media users, prohibits minors under 16 from creating accounts without parental consent, and restricts advertising to users under 16 based on personal information other than age and location. NetChoice argues that these provisions violate the First Amendment. A U.S. District Court Judge, Amy Totenberg, initially sided with NetChoice and blocked the law's enforcement. However, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed this ruling, sending the case back for further proceedings. The appellate judges indicated that NetChoice had not definitively proven the law would always violate the First Amendment, suggesting an application-by-application analysis might be necessary, especially for platforms hosting content like pornography, which is protected for adults but not minors. NetChoice contends that such an approach is ove...

Supreme Court Declines to Update Insanity Defense Model, Retaining 183-Year-Old Legal Theory

Supreme Court Declines to Update Insanity Defense Model, Retaining 183-Year-Old Legal Theory

The Supreme Court, in the 2020 case *Kahler v. Kansas*, declined an opportunity to update the legal model of the mind used in insanity defenses, effectively upholding an 183-year-old theory. The Court ruled 6-3 that due process does not require states to excuse a defendant who could not distinguish right from wrong. This decision means that states like Kansas can limit mental illness as a defense only if it negates intent, rather than considering a broader inability to appreciate wrongfulness. Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the majority, found the historical record on insanity defenses too mixed to mandate a change. This adherence to the M’Naghten rules, established in 1843, maintains a simplified view of the human mind in legal contexts, often clashing with modern psychiatric understanding. The issue gained renewed attention with the mistrial in the Lindsay Clancy case, where a jury deadlocked on whether a mother suffering from postpartum psychosis could be held criminally responsible under existing leg...

Supreme Court Declines Review of NLRB's Adjudicative Precedent Interpretation

Supreme Court Declines Review of NLRB's Adjudicative Precedent Interpretation

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review a petition in the case of Rieth-Riley Construction Co. v. NLRB. The employer, Rieth-Riley Construction Co., had argued that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals improperly allowed the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to reinterpret one of its own long-standing precedents without independently analyzing the precedent's original meaning. The case centered on the NLRB's 1958 decision in Retail Associates, which governs withdrawal from multiemployer bargaining units. Rieth-Riley contended that the NLRB effectively rewrote this rule by interpreting 'the agreed-upon date' for bargaining to begin as 'any agreed-upon date,' thereby allowing a union to withdraw even when no specific bargaining date had been set. The employer argued that this interpretation nullified part of the original rule and contradicted the text of the Board's own precedent, and that the Sixth Circuit wrongly deferred to the agency's reading.

Walmart Receives $2.9 Billion in Tariff Refunds Following Supreme Court Decision

Walmart Receives $2.9 Billion in Tariff Refunds Following Supreme Court Decision

Walmart Receives $2.9 Billion in Tariff Refunds Following Supreme Court Decision

National Labor Relations Board Faces Legal Challenge Over Union Certification Standards

National Labor Relations Board Faces Legal Challenge Over Union Certification Standards

The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (CDW), joined by Independent Electrical Contractors (IEC) and other employer organizations, has filed an amicus curiae brief with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The brief challenges the NLRB's long-standing interpretation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) regarding union certification. Currently, the NLRB certifies a union if it receives a majority of votes cast in a representation election, even if that number is less than a majority of all employees in the bargaining unit. The CDW argues that Section 9(a) of the NLRA requires a union to have affirmative support from a majority of all employees in the bargaining unit, not just those who participate in the election. This legal challenge is supported by the Supreme Court's 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which eliminated mandatory judicial deference to federal agencies' statutory interpretations, urging the NLRB to adhere to the law's actual text. The brief contends that th...

Supreme Court allows Big Bend border wall plans in win for Trump

Supreme Court allows Big Bend border wall plans in win for Trump

Texans in the Big Bend area say a border wall threatens their land, lives and livelihoods. The Trump administration has fast-tracked construction.

'Horrific decision': These Texans bashed the Supreme Court's Big Bend ruling

'Horrific decision': These Texans bashed the Supreme Court's Big Bend ruling

Big Bend area residents and advocates argue the Big Bend region doesn’t see enough migrants to merit a border wall and that building one will destroy what makes the area a national treasure.

Harvard Law Review Examines Judicial 'Fact Avoidance' in Presidential Power Cases

Harvard Law Review Examines Judicial 'Fact Avoidance' in Presidential Power Cases

The Harvard Law Review has published an essay titled 'Fact Avoidance' by Shalev Gad Roisman, which analyzes a judicial tendency to resolve cases involving presidential power solely on interpretive grounds, thereby sidestepping a review of the factual predicates underlying the President's actions. The essay highlights two recent Supreme Court cases, *Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump* and *Trump v. Illinois*, as examples. In *Learning Resources*, President Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, claiming an 'unusual and extraordinary threat.' In *Trump v. Illinois*, President Trump sought to deploy the National Guard, asserting an inability to 'execute the laws' with regular forces. In both instances, the Supreme Court focused on whether President Trump's interpretation of the statutes was correct, rather than evaluating whether the factual conditions required to trigger the delegated power were actually met. For example, in *Trump v. Illinois*, a district co...