The U.S. Supreme Court

[phkrause]

Feds in court crosshairs

The Supreme Court has teed up two big opportunities to significantly curtail the federal government's regulatory power — to weaken or even dismantle agencies that have been in conservatives' sights for years, Axios court-watcher Sam Baker writes.

• The new term begins Monday — the first Monday in October.

Why it matters: Some of the first cases on the docket could advance conservatives' years-long push to rein in the federal bureaucracy — and to undercut core Democratic priorities, from regulating Wall Street to combating climate change.

The justices are scheduled to hear oral arguments Tuesday in a suit that could gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a cornerstone of Congress' response to the 2008 financial crisis.

• A group of payday lenders brought the case, which argues that the CFPB's funding mechanism is unconstitutional.
• A ruling in lenders' favor would grind much of the agency's work to a halt.

The most important case on the docket so far may be Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.

• On its face, it's a dispute over the finer points of federal oversight of herring fishing. But the case could be a major coup for the conservative legal movement.
• Lots is at stake for the EPA, which has — mostly unsuccessfully— asked the court to defer to its understanding of major environmental laws.

🔮 What's next: The court will likely take on bigger, more polarizing controversies as the term goes on.

• The justices have agreed to hear a major Second Amendment case. State laws banning gender-affirming care are on an accelerating path toward the high court. Abortion also might be back on the docket soon.

[phkrause]

The Supreme Court opens its new term with a case about prison terms for drug dealers

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court opened its new term Monday with a case about prison terms for drug dealers and rejections of hundreds of appeals, including one from an attorney who pushed a plan to keep former President Donald Trump in power.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-new-term-drug-dealers-e6bcb8eb37d6a2fdd286dbc3c1799441?

[phkrause]

Epic docket

Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios

It's the first Monday in October. The Supreme Court term that begins today will include huge cases on gun rights, the First Amendment and federal regulatory power, Axios court-watcher Sam Baker writes. Why it matters: After overturning Roe, expanding gun rights and handing down a host of other sweeping decisions, the conservative court has another slate of potential blockbusters on the docket. Second Amendment: The court will decide, in U.S. v. Rahimi, the constitutionality of a firearm-ownership ban for people who are subject to restraining orders because of domestic violence. Politicians and social media: The court will hear two related cases involving local officials who blocked constituents on social media. Two members of a San Diego-area school board blocked parents who posted messages on Facebook and Twitter accusing the board of financial impropriety and racism. The court will hear the San Diego case alongside a similar suit involving the city manager in Port Huron, Mich., who blocked a constituent who objected to COVID restrictions. Federal regulations: Tomorrow, the justices will hear a case that could gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. 🔮 What's next: State laws banning gender-affirming care are on an accelerating path toward the high court. Abortion also may be back on the docket relatively soon, via lawsuits over the drug mifepristone, which is used in almost half of abortions in the U.S. Go deeper: Get Sam's take on each of these cases.

[phkrause]

DeSantis’ Big Tech crackdown in 2021 will get a hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court

A 2021 Florida law that sought to control the ability of social media platforms to “censor” disfavored political views and a similar measure from Texas are headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

https://floridaphoenix.com/2023/10/05/desantis-big-tech-crackdown-in-2021-will-get-a-hearing-before-the-u-s-supreme-court/?

[phkrause]

We Don’t Talk About Leonard: The Man Behind the Right’s Supreme Court Supermajority

The party guests who arrived on the evening of June 23, 2022, at the Tudor-style mansion on the coast of Maine were a special group in a special place enjoying a special time. The attendees included some two dozen federal and state judges — a gathering that required U.S. marshals with earpieces to stand watch while a Coast Guard boat idled in a nearby cove.

https://www.propublica.org/article/we-dont-talk-about-leonard-leo-supreme-court-supermajority?

Conservative Activist Poured Millions Into Groups Seeking to Influence Supreme Court on Elections and Discrimination

Flush with money after receiving the largest-known political advocacy donation in U.S. history, conservative activist Leonard Leo and his associates are spending millions of dollars to influence some of the Supreme Court’s most consequential recent cases, newly released tax documents obtained by ProPublica and The Lever show.

https://www.propublica.org/article/leonard-leo-scotus-elections-nonprofits-discrimination?

Inside the “Private and Confidential” Conservative Group That Promises to “Crush Liberal Dominance”

A few months ago, Leonard Leo laid out his next audacious project.

https://www.propublica.org/article/leonard-leo-teneo-videos-documents?

How a Secretive Billionaire Handed His Fortune to the Architect of the Right-Wing Takeover of the Courts

An elderly, ultra-secretive Chicago businessman has given the largest known donation to a political advocacy group in U.S. history — worth $1.6 billion — and the recipient is one of the prime architects of conservatives’ efforts to reshape the American judicial system, including the Supreme Court.

https://www.propublica.org/article/dark-money-leonard-leo-barre-seid?

[phkrause]

⚖️ Charted: Courtroom interruptions

Data: Cai, et al., 2023, "'Let Me Just Interrupt You': Estimating Gender Effects in Supreme Court Oral Arguments." Chart: Will Chase and Kavya Beheraj/Axios Supreme Court justices are far more likely to interrupt a female attorney during oral arguments than a male attorney, Axios' Will Chase and Kavya Beheraj write from a new study analyzing four decades of court transcripts. By the numbers: A female attorney in conversation with Chief Justice John Roberts can expect to get interrupted 2.1 times more often than her male counterpart. Most justices in the study were more likely to interrupt women; the discrepancy was especially pronounced among conservative-leaning justices. The big picture: Special oral argument rules put in place during the pandemic made the interruption rate more equitable, for a while. But the bias bounced back once those restrictions eased.

[phkrause]

A Supreme Court dispute over a $15,000 IRS bill may be aimed at a never-enacted tax on billionaires

WASHINGTON (AP) — Charles and Kathleen Moore are about to have their day in the Supreme Court over a $15,000 tax bill they contend is unconstitutional.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-billionaires-tax-justices-finances-4047a0bae0cf4138a702b9ea9a231e4f?

[phkrause]

The Supreme Court seems likely to rule against a trademark in the ‘Trump too small’ case

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court signaled Wednesday that it would rule against a man who wants to trademark the suggestive phrase “Trump too small.”

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trademark-dispute-trump-ae1584baa2beb22939ffca805bcfd6ea?

[phkrause]

Supreme Court will rule on ban on rapid-fire gun bump stocks, used in the Las Vegas mass shooting

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide whether a Trump era-ban on bump stocks, the gun attachments that allow semi-automatic weapons to fire rapidly like machine guns, violates federal law.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-guns-bump-stocks-2b66dbcbce4c04c19b448951696fe4b6?

[phkrause]

The Supreme Court seems likely to preserve a gun law that protects domestic violence victims

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court seemed likely Tuesday to preserve a federal law that prohibits people under domestic violence restraining orders from having guns.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-guns-domestic-violence-b86948dc6103573898c3757b998a0a6c?

[phkrause]

Supreme Court caves

Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios

The Supreme Court adopted its first code of conduct today after months of intense media scrutiny and pressure from Congress, Axios' Jacob Knutson writes. Why it matters: A drip-drip of revelations about a lack of gift disclosures by several sitting Supreme Court justices created a surge of interest in a topic that usually would be extremely niche — judicial ethics. What's happening: Reports of lavish gifts received by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito ignited the scrutiny and an effort by Senate Democrats to force the court to adopt a code of conduct. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch also faced criticism over book and property sales. Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Elena Kagan and Brett Kavanaugh publicly supported the adoption of a formal code. 🏛️ Zoom in: The Supreme Court was the only part of the federal judiciary that did not have a formal code of ethics for its members. Compliance with the new code is left to the justices themselves. Keep reading ... Read the code. The Supreme Court says it is adopting a code of ethics, but it has no means of enforcement WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday adopted its first code of ethics, in the face of sustained criticism over undisclosed trips and gifts from wealthy benefactors to some justices, but the code lacks a means of enforcement. https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-ethics-code-conflicts-clarence-thomas-64d393ceb6f05402d762dca06f0f4187? U.S. Supreme Court unveils new ethics code, but critics say it doesn’t go far enough WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court has released a new ethics code, just days before the Democrat-led U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary again attempts to subpoena two high-profile GOP donors following revelations that justices accepted undisclosed luxury trips and engaged in other potential conflicts of interest. https://floridaphoenix.com/2023/11/14/u-s-supreme-court-unveils-new-ethics-code-but-critics-say-it-doesnt-go-far-enough/?

[phkrause]

The Supreme Court Has Adopted a Conduct Code, but Who Will Enforce It?

Experts say it is unclear if the new rules, which come after reporting by ProPublica and others revealed that justices had repeatedly failed to disclose gifts and travel from wealthy donors, would address the issues raised by the recent revelations.

https://www.propublica.org/article/supreme-court-adopts-ethics-code-scotus-thomas-alito-crow?

[phkrause]

Conservative Supreme Court justices seem open to an attack on the Securities and Exchange Commission

WASHINGTON (AP) — Conservative Supreme Court justices on Wednesday seemed open to a challenge to how the Securities and Exchange Commission fights fraud, in a case that could have far-reaching effects on other regulatory agencies.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-regulatory-agencies-sec-enforcement-c3a3cae2f4bc5f53dd6a23e99d3a1fac?

[phkrause]

The Supreme Court wrestles with OxyContin maker’s bankruptcy deal, with billions of dollars at stake

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday wrestled with a nationwide settlement with OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma that would shield members of the Sackler family who own the company from civil lawsuits over the toll of opioids.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-opioid-purdue-pharma-oxycontin-bankruptcy-df2843c77fa46d8a4752d4fe43745f0f?

[phkrause]

Supreme Court signals it will uphold a tax on foreign income and leave a wealth tax for another day

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed inclined to uphold a tax on foreign income while leaving questions about a broader, never-enacted tax on wealth for another day.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-wealth-tax-washington-b3535dcc68299ad38a52ff86433f692d?

[phkrause]

US Supreme Court asked to quickly rule on Trump claims of presidential immunity

WASHINGTON — Department of Justice Special Counsel Jack Smith asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to expedite a decision on former President Donald Trump’s claims of presidential immunity in the 2020 election interference case.

https://floridaphoenix.com/2023/12/11/us-supreme-court-asked-to-quickly-rule-on-trump-claims-of-presidential-immunity/?

[phkrause]

The Judiciary Has Policed Itself for Decades. It Doesn’t Work.

For decades, judges have relied on a select group to make sure the judiciary adheres to the highest ethical standards: themselves.

https://www.propublica.org/article/judicial-conference-scotus-federal-judges-ethics-rules?

[phkrause]

Supreme Court agrees to hear abortion pill case

The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to review an August appeals court decision that curtailed access to the widely used abortion pill mifepristone.

https://www.axios.com/2023/12/13/supreme-court-abortion-pill-mifepristone-case?

[phkrause]

Supreme Court will hear a case that could undo Capitol riot charge against hundreds, including Trump

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it will hear an appeal that could upend hundreds of charges stemming from the Capitol riot, including against former President Donald Trump.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-capitol-riot-obstruction-charge-trump-5cf0db4a71766f0b40ec199dd0d5a1ab?

[phkrause]

Justices will review lower-court ruling on access to abortion pill

The Supreme Court on Wednesday morning agreed to review a ruling by a federal appeals court that would significantly restrict (but not eliminate altogether) access to a drug used in medication abortions, which account for over half of all abortions performed in the United States. Wednesday’s announcement means that the justices will weigh in on the issue of abortion for the first time since overruling the constitutional right to an abortion last year in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Their decisions in the new cases, Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and Danco Laboratories v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, are likely to come sometime next summer, in the middle of the 2024 presidential campaign.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/12/justices-will-review-lower-court-ruling-on-access-to-abortion-pill/

[phkrause]

Trump's Supreme Court wild cards

Photo illustration: Annelise Capossela/Axios. Photo: Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

Two historic cases related to Jan. 6 arrived on the Supreme Court's doorstep this week, each carrying profound implications for the prosecution and political future of Donald J. Trump, Axios' Erin Doherty reports. Why it matters: Trump's indictments are deeply intertwined with his 2024 campaign. Favorable Supreme Court rulings that delay — or dismantle — his federal election interference case would embolden a candidacy that critics already warn poses an existential threat to democracy. Driving the news: The Supreme Court agreed yesterday to hear a Jan. 6 participant's appeal of his "obstruction of an official proceeding" charge, which the Justice Department has used to prosecute over 300 defendants. The high court will consider the scope of a federal statute that makes it a crime for anyone who "corruptly" obstructs, influences or impedes an official proceeding. Defendants argue the law was never intended to apply to conduct such as Jan. 6 riot. The case, which is not directly about Trump, has implications for parts of his federal 2020 election indictment, which charged him with obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to obstruct. Zoom out: A ruling that invalidates charges and convictions won against hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants would be a massive political victory for Trump, who has championed the cause of supporters prosecuted for storming the Capitol. "We need the Supreme Court to step in and stop this. This has become complete mayhem," Trump lawyer Alina Habba told Fox News yesterday. The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments in its review of the obstruction question in the spring, with a ruling likely by the end of June, according to Politico. Also this week, the Supreme Court was asked by special counsel Jack Smith to weigh one of Trump's main defenses in his 2020 election subversion case — whether he is "absolutely immune" from prosecution for crimes he committed in office. In a request Smith himself called "extraordinary," the special counsel asked the justices to circumvent an appeals court to speedily take up and consider whether ex-presidents have immunity. Trump's team, which has sought to delay all of his criminal trials until after the 2024 election, has criticized Smith's request as a "Hail Mary." U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan yesterday agreed to temporarily pause all proceedings in the 2020 election case as an appeals court weighs Trump's immunity claim. What to watch: Smith's aggressive bid to leapfrog the appeals process to keep Trump's March 4 trial on track could be stymied by the Supreme Court's decision to consider the obstruction case, Derek Muller, a University of Notre Dame law school professor, told Axios. "Trump's attorneys could ask the court to delay the trial until the Supreme Court issues a decision, because a decision would apply to interpreting one of the statutes at issue in his case," he said. Keep reading

[phkrause]

The Supreme Court refuses to block an Illinois law banning some high-power semiautomatic weapons

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to put on hold a new Illinois law that would ban high-power semiautomatic weapons like the one used in the mass killing of seven people at a 2022 parade in a Chicago suburb.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-semiautomatic-weapon-ammunition-ban-gun-rights-2b1a3e9795814ba9c05ea8720cbb6f4d?

[phkrause]

⚖️ Inside Roe's end

Justices pose for a group portrait in 2021. Photo: Erin Schaff/The New York Times via Getty Images In overturning Roe v. Wade last year, the Supreme Court didn't just shatter precedent: It tested boundaries of how cases are decided, the N.Y. Times' Jodi Kantor and Adam Liptak report in a 6,500-word account of how conservatives prevailed in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. Why it matters: The justices "transformed a long-shot case into a historic turning point — shooting down compromise." The backdrop: Conservatives outside the court insisted that seizing the moment was vital, since Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas are in their 70s, "and the new conservative supermajority would not last forever." Among the findings by Kantor — who won a Pulitzer for breaking the Harvey Weinstein story, helping ignite the #MeToo movement — and Liptak, who covers the court: Alito "appeared to have pregamed" his opinion with "some of the conservative justices ... to safeguard a coalition more fragile than it looked." The clue: After his clerk circulated a 98-page draft opinion, "despite the document's length, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote back just 10 minutes later to say that he would sign on to the opinion and had no changes ... The next morning, Justice Clarence Thomas added his name, then Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and days later, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. None requested a single alteration. The responses looked like a display of conservative force and discipline." Barrett, nominated by President Trump in 2020 "to clinch the court's conservative supermajority and deliver the nearly 50-year goal of the religious right," initially opposed taking up Dobbs in 2021: "Four male justices, a minority of the court, chose to move ahead anyway ... She was the lone woman in the conservative bloc, with seven children and personal views on abortion that were no secret. Of the nine people in black robes, she was the sole mother. This was not the time, she told Justice Alito ... She had arrived not even three months before." After secretly voting to hear Dobbs, the justices delayed announcing the decision in part to "create the appearance of distance" from the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2020. So "as the winter of 2021 turned to spring, the docket showed the case being re-listed [awaiting a decision on whether to grant review] week after week. Anxiety mounted among conservatives outside the court." Chief Justice John Roberts of the conservative bloc and Justice Stephen Breyer, a lifelong liberal, worked hard on a compromise to save part of Roe: "Justice Breyer even considered trying to save Roe v. Wade ... by significantly eroding it." The leak to Politico ended that: "[M]aking the draft public had effectively cemented the votes. ... Whatever the intent, the breach became a strike on the chief, Justice Breyer and their quest for compromise ... The chief worried whether he could even share his concurring opinion on an email list that had become a roster of suspects, waiting until new, paper-only protocols were in place." "The leak investigation that followed was inconclusive ... The marshal's office presented a form to the clerks, later obtained by The Times, that spurred panic. The young lawyers, dependent on court relationships for future jobs, were asked for access to their personal phones; location data going back nearly a year; and emails, texts, voice messages and photos." Image: The New York Times Above: The form given to court employees during the Dobbs leak investigation. Full story (gift link — no paywall) ... Times' 5 takeaways ... Kantor narrates a 2-min. video.

[phkrause]

SCOTUS v. Trump

Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios

The Supreme Court is stuck with Donald Trump, whether the justices like it or not, Axios SCOTUS expert Sam Baker writes. Why it matters: The court may have no real way to avoid a starring role in the 2024 campaign — or to shield itself from the constant firestorm that swirls around Trump. Almost no one in politics has managed to escape that maelstrom undamaged. That's bad news for the high court at a time when its seams are more visible than they've been in decades. The court was already under fire from the left, divided internally on the right and losing its luster with the public. "There's no winning," Notre Dame law professor Derek Muller told Axios. "There's a sense in which the cases are bigger than Trump ... In the past, any one of these cases probably would have been fatal to a candidate." What's happening: Legal experts from all over the ideological spectrum expect that the court will soon agree to hear the dispute over whether Trump can be on the ballot when Colorado holds its GOP primary. The justices have already agreed to hear a separate case challenging some of the charges against Jan. 6 rioters, which has indirect implications for Trump's Jan. 6 prosecution. And special counsel Jack Smith has asked them to rule quickly on Trump's claims that he's immune from prosecution because he was president. 🔎 Between the lines: Experts say the court will have a hard time finding escape hatches that would let it resolve these cases while ducking the biggest questions. In Smith's case, agreeing to move quickly means the court's work will be under the microscope in the heat of campaign season. Trump is sure to latch onto even the most incremental decisions against him. But moving slowly would be a de facto win for Trump: His goal is to delay this prosecution until after the election, hope he wins, and then get the Justice Department to simply drop the case. Democrats are already livid with the court's conservative majority over Roe v. Wade and recent ethics controversies.

[phkrause]

Trump transformed the Supreme Court. Now the justices could decide his political and legal future Donald Trump touts his transformation of the U.S. Supreme Court as one of his presidency’s greatest accomplishments. Now his legal and political future may lie in the hands of the court he pushed to the right. Read more.

Why this matters: The outcomes of the legal fights could dictate whether the Republican presidential primary front-runner stands trial over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election and whether he has a shot to retake to the White House next November.   With three Trump-appointed justices leading a conservative majority, the court is being thrust into the middle of two cases carrying enormous political implications just weeks before the first votes in the Iowa caucuses.

Related coverage ➤ Trump’s lawyers tell Supreme Court to stay out of immunity dispute in 2020 election case for now WATCH: Plaintiff speaks on court barring Trump from Colorado ballot