The U.S. Supreme Court

[phkrause]

Kavanaugh Admits Trumpy Shadow Docket Rulings Are Tearing SCOTUS Apart

The court hasn’t elaborated on many of its brief rulings taking the Trump administration’s side.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh acknowledged that the recent flurry of short, unexplained rulings in the Supreme Court’s “shadow docket” has caused a rift among justices.

The shadow docket refers to Supreme Court decisions made quickly and without full briefing or public explanation, often in emergency or procedural cases. While the rulings are technically temporary, the Trump administration has repeatedly leaned on this process to advance its policy goals swiftly. Critics argue the system lacks transparency.

While speaking to a gathering of judges and lawyers at a conference in Missouri on Thursday, Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, said justices have differed on whether to elaborate on their decisions in shadow docket rulings.

“I think there are different views among members of the court about when to do it and when not,” Kavanaugh said, according to Politico, adding: “We’re nine independent people.”

Though Kavanaugh was quick to assure the assembled legal minds that “the collegiality of the Supreme Court is very strong” and that “we all look out for each other,” it’s rare for sitting justices not to present a united front on the court’s internal workings.

Kavanaugh later said the court really does deliberate over issues presented in the “shadow docket,” even if the end result may not look like it. He also admitted that the issue of whether a president’s policies can continue while being litigated is “not a trivial question,” according to NBC News.

The former D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals judge added that the lack of elaboration in these decisions is to avoid the impression that the court is making a final determination. That could pose a “danger,” Kavanaugh said, CNN reported.

“There can be a risk in writing the opinion of lock-in effect—of making a snap judgment and putting it in writing, in the written opinion, that is not going to reflect the final view,” he explained.

Among the court’s brief rulings in the shadow docket was one allowing Trump’s layoffs at the Department of Education. That one-paragraph notice offered no specifics as to why.

The court, as of July 10, put on hold lower court rulings to permit Trump’s policies to continue 16 straight times, Georgetown Law Professor Steve Vladeck noted.

Besides gutting the Department of Education, this has given the green light for mass firings of federal workers and employees of independent agencies, such as the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Deportations were also allowed to resume, as well as the president’s directive to ban transgender military members.

Justice Elena Kagan took a different view as to whether the court should justify these decisions.

“Courts are supposed to explain things,” the Obama appointee said this week at a judicial conference in California. “As we have done more and more on this emergency docket there becomes a real responsibility, that I think we didn’t recognize when we first started down this road, to explain things better.”

Also in his talk Thursday, Kavanaugh said he’s well aware of the public’s attitude toward the court—which he described as “an ocean of criticism and critiques.”

“I’m aware of it. I definitely pay attention to it. I think you have to. We’re public officials who serve the American people. It’s not an academic exercise,” he said. “It’s important for maintaining public confidence in the judiciary and the Supreme Court to know how the opinions are being conveyed and received and understood by the American people.”

The Daily Beast has reached out to the White House for comment.

Josephine Harvey contributed to this report.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/brett-kavanaugh-admits-trumpy-shadow-docket-rulings-are-tearing-supreme-court-apart/?

[phkrause]

SCOTUS order in Louisiana case could affect Alabama redistricting battle

The U.S. Supreme Court’s request to the parties in a Louisiana redistricting case could affect Alabama’s similar, long-running battle over congressional boundaries.

https://floridaphoenix.com/2025/08/05/scotus-order-in-louisiana-case-could-affect-alabama-redistricting-battle/?

[phkrause]

U.S. Supreme Court gives go-ahead for Trump to cancel $783M in NIH research grants

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside a lower court’s ruling, allowing the Trump administration to cancel hundreds of millions of dollars in National Institutes of Health grants that addressed diversity, equity and inclusion issues.

https://floridaphoenix.com/2025/08/22/repub/u-s-supreme-court-gives-go-ahead-for-trump-to-cancel-783m-in-nih-research-grants/?

[phkrause]

⚖️ The Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to resume aggressive immigration raids in Los Angeles. Go deeper. The court today also gave Trump a temporary victory in his effort to fire the lone Democrat on the FTC.

Chief Justice Roberts keeps in place Trump funding freeze that threatens billions in foreign aid

WASHINGTON (AP) — Chief Justice John Roberts on Tuesday temporarily kept in place the Trump administration’s decision to freeze nearly $5 billion in foreign aid.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-foreign-aid-freeze-a95532a1e05b94a92e3fabe2edf985d4?

[phkrause]

?️ Supreme Court fast-tracks tariff case

Photo illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios. Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images

The Supreme Court will expedite an appeal of a ruling that struck down most of President Trump's tariffs, Axios' prolific Ben Berkowitz writes. Why it matters: The blockbuster case will determine the future of Trump's efforts to reshape the global trade system and potentially impact hundreds of billions of dollars in government revenue. The court's order set oral arguments for early November.

[phkrause]

Supreme Court will weigh expanding Trump’s power to shape agencies by overturning 90-year-old ruling

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Monday it will consider expanding President Donald Trump’s power to shape independent agencies by overturning a nearly century-old decision limiting when presidents can fire board members.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-fire-ftc-commissioner-supreme-court-2149d7c3802b3ddea6e157d3a0afd292?

⚖️ The Supreme Court let President Trump fire a Democratic member of the FTC, Rebecca Slaughter, while it weighs whether to overturn a precedent that protects appointees at independent agencies. Go deeper.

[phkrause]

Supreme Court lets Lisa Cook remain as a Federal Reserve governor for now

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed Lisa Cook to remain as a Federal Reserve governor for now, declining to act on the Trump administration’s effort to immediately remove her from the central bank.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-federal-reserve-lisa-cook-5a48941a9e30017b0ed3e5837492d288?

[phkrause]

SCOTUS Turns on Trump Over Federal Reserve Power Grab

The president had tried to fire Lisa Cook over unproven claims of mortgage fraud.

President Donald Trump’s bid to gain greater control of the Federal Reserve has been dealt a blow after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected his push to immediately fire central bank governor Lisa Cook.

The conservative-dominated court ruled on Wednesday that Cook could remain in her job for now, thwarting Trump’s desire to have greater sway over monetary policy by stacking the Fed with loyalists.

The move is likely to infuriate the president, who had tried to fire Cook over unproven claims of mortgage fraud made by MAGA ally Bill Pulte, the head of Federal Housing Finance Agency.

Pulte, who has a history of targeting Trump’s enemies, made similar claims against New York Attorney General Letitia James, the Democratic prosecutor who successfully pursued Trump over civil fraud relating to his real estate empire.

But Cook insists she has done nothing wrong, and argued in court that the president lacked the authority to sack her on such grounds.

Wednesday’s ruling allows the Federal Reserve Governor to remain in her job for now—at least until the Supreme Court hears the arguments from both parties in January.

“President Trump lawfully removed Lisa Cook for cause from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. We look forward to ultimate victory after presenting our oral arguments before the Supreme Court in January,” said White House spokesman Kush Desai.

Cook, the first Black woman to serve on the board, was appointed under the Biden administration in 2022 and her current term extends until 2038.

The push to now unseat her comes as Trump seeks to overhaul the Fed and install governors who are more likely to cut interest rates, which he believes will boost the U.S. economy.

The issue has angered the president for months, fueling his calls for Powell to resign.

Last month, the bank finally cut interest rates for the first time this year due to mounting evidence of a weakening job market and elevated inflation.

But the quarter of a percent cut was less than what the Trump administration had hoped for, and only one policy maker on the board advocated for a bigger rate cut, Trump ally and newly-installed Governor Stephen Miran.

Trump’s extraordinary bid to fire Cook began in August, when the president posted a public termination letter on his Truth Social account, addressed to her.

“You are hereby removed from your position on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, effective immediately,” he told her.

But in a legal smackdown earlier this month, a federal judge in Washington D.C. ruled that removing Cook caused her “irreparable harm” and that the president had likely violated her procedural right to due process by posting his letter to her on social media.

“President Trump has not identified anything related to Cook’s conduct or job performance as a board member that would indicate that she is harming the board or the public interest by executing her duties unfaithfully or ineffectively,” U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb added.

The president then turned to the U.S. Supreme Court, where conservatives have a 6-3 majority, and three of those six justices were appointed by Trump himself.

But the court’s decision means she can stay until it hears oral arguments next year. The case is expected to be closely watched, given the seismic shift that any ruling could have on U.S. economic policy.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/scotus-turns-on-trump-over-federal-reserve-power-grab/?

[phkrause]

⚖️ Supreme Court collision course

Illustration: Brendan Lynch/Axios

President Trump needs the Supreme Court to validate some of his most sweeping exercises of presidential power — and to stretch or outright overturn some of its own precedents in order to do so, Axios' Sam Baker reports. The Supreme Court is set to hear three big Trump cases in its new term, which begins next week — challenges to his tariffs, his firing of a Federal Trade Commission member and his attempt to fire Fed governor Lisa Cook. ? The precedents standing in Trump's way are conservative ones. The right's long, successful campaign to curtail presidents' domestic powers is on a collision course with Trump's wrecking-ball presidency. ⛔️ Where it stands: When President Biden tried to impose an eviction moratorium during COVID, and then to forgive student loans, the Supreme Court said those policies ran afoul of the "major questions doctrine." Presidents can't implement policies that have "vast economic and political significance" unless they have explicit authorization from Congress, the Supreme Court said then. That same legal reasoning should also sink Trump's tariffs, a federal appeals court ruled this summer. ? What's next: The 6-3 court repeatedly has sided with Trump in his efforts to fire federal workers — and signaled it may want to go as far as to overturn the precedent that protects leaders of independent agencies.

[phkrause]

Supreme Court will consider overturning Hawaii’s strict ban on guns on private property

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said on Friday that it will take up its latest gun rights case and consider striking down a strict regulation on where people can carry firearms in Hawaii.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-hawaii-guns-ed5a815c9f9c3f1397a3dd710fd7e17c?

[phkrause]

New Supreme Court term confronts justices with Trump’s aggressive assertion of presidential power

A monumental Supreme Court term begins Monday with major tests of presidential power on the agenda along with pivotal cases on voting and the rights of LGBTQ people. The court’s conservative majority has far been receptive, at least in preliminary rulings, to many of President Donald Trump’s aggressive assertions of authority. They could be more skeptical when they conduct an in-depth examination of some Trump policies, including his imposition of tariffs and his desired restrictions on birthright citizenship. Read more.

[phkrause]

Supreme Court's history-making term

Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios

It's the first Monday in October! The Supreme Court's new term, which begins today, is poised to deliver conservatives a string of victories, Axios' Sam Baker writes. The justices have loaded up their docket with issues that largely unite the right. Even more referendums on key parts of President Trump's agenda will almost certainly find their way to One First Street NE. ⚽️ Trans rights: The court has agreed to hear two cases about whether states can bar trans athletes from participating in women's sports — one at the high school level and one involving collegiate sports. It'll also hear a challenge to Colorado's ban on conversion therapy, brought by a therapist who argues that the state is infringing on her right to free speech by dictating what messages she can or cannot discuss with her patients. ?️ Politics: In a case brought by Vice President JD Vance when he was still an Ohio senator, the court will consider reversing a precedent that limits coordination between campaigns and political parties. The justices may deliver another blow to what remains of the Voting Rights Act. ? There's a new Second Amendment case — a challenge to a Hawai'i law that makes it hard to bring guns onto private property, as well as public areas like parks, playgrounds and beaches. The justices also agreed to clarify the rules for sentencing intellectually disabled people to death. ⚡️ And then there are the Trump cases. The justices have already agreed to hear challenges to Trump's tariffs, his attempts to fire an FTC commissioner, and his firing of a Fed governor. More are on the way — potentially including the merits of his effort to revoke birthright citizenship from the children of undocumented immigrants. And new Trump policies will inevitably end up on the court's "shadow docket" as they work their way through the courts.

[phkrause]

Deportation protections for 300,000 Venezuelans denied again by US Supreme Court

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court Friday again allowed the Trump administration to strip temporary protections for more than 300,000 Venezuelans, opening them up for quick deportations as the president continues with his plans for mass deportations.  

https://floridaphoenix.com/2025/10/04/repub/deportation-protections-for-300000-venezuelans-denied-again-by-us-supreme-court/?

Supreme Court rejects appeal from Ghislaine Maxwell, imprisoned former girlfriend of Jeffrey Epstein

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from Ghislaine Maxwell, the imprisoned former girlfriend of Jeffrey Epstein.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-epstein-maxwell-appeal-a4ba832cd2a23a2c499cef23f1e30927?

[phkrause]

Clarence Thomas Clerk Issues Dire Warning About Supreme Court’s Agenda

Legal scholar Caleb Nelson is worried about the “pro-president” direction the Supreme Court seems to be moving toward.

A former law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas has warned that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution “appears to be moving toward a sweepingly pro-president position.”

In an essay for the NYU Law Democracy Project, originalist legal scholar and University of Virginia School of Law professor Caleb Nelson argued that the Constitution’s text and historical context give Congress wide latitude to organize the executive branch and to impose limits on the president’s power to remove officials.

It’s an issue that is already front and center on the court’s docket, and one that Nelson warns “can do lasting damage to our norms and institutions” in the case of “a President bent on vengeful, destructive and lawless behavior.”

In September, the Supreme Court issued a 6–3 emergency order allowing President Donald Trump to remove Federal Trade Commission leader Rebecca Kelly Slaughter from her position. Slaughter, who was appointed to the FTC in 2018 during Trump’s first administration, argued that she was “illegally” fired in a move that violated “clear Supreme Court precedent.”

The Court will hear arguments in the case in December, when it will consider whether to overturn the 1935 precedent that limits the president’s ability to remove independent agency regulators over policy disagreements.

“It is true that Article II vests the executive power in the President,” Nelson, who clerked for Thomas from 1994 to 1995, wrote in his article. “But Congress is in charge of creating offices within the executive branch, and the Constitution does not give the President unilateral power to dictate who will fill those offices or what their authorities and duties will be.”

While the current Supreme Court has repeatedly sided with the Trump administration since the president returned to office in January, Nelson hopes “the Justices will not act as if their hands are tied and they cannot consider any consequences of the interpretations that they choose” when deciding cases like Slaughter’s.

However, The New York Times’ Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak believes “There is little question that the court will side with the president. Its conservative majority has repeatedly signaled that it plans to adopt the ‘unitary executive theory,’ which says the original understanding of the Constitution demands letting the president remove executive branch officials as he sees fit.”

Still, Nelson’s article has elicited a massive response from the legal community.

“Bombshell!” was constitutional law scholar and professor William Baude’s immediate reaction to Nelson’s commentary. “Caleb Nelson, one of the most respected originalist scholars in the country, comes out against the unitary executive interpretation of Article II,” he wrote.

Nelson’s originalist understanding of the Constitution has led to his opinions previously being cited in more than a dozen Supreme Court decisions. Thomas himself referenced his former clerk’s work six times in a 2023 concurring opinion, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh named Nelson among a small group of “respected scholars” in a concurring opinion last year.

Article II of the U.S. Constitution states that “[t]he executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” The “unitary executive interpretation” referenced by Baude is based on the “unitary executive theory,” which holds that the president has sole authority over the executive branch, including the power to dismiss executive branch officials at will.

“If most of what the federal government currently does on a daily basis is ‘executive,’ and if the President must have full control over each and every exercise of ‘executive’ power by the federal government (including an unlimitable ability to remove all or almost all executive officers for reasons good or bad), then the President has an enormous amount of power,” Nelson wrote.

“If a highly respected originalist scholar like Professor Nelson, on whom the court relies frequently, denies that originalism supports the unitary executive theory,” NYU law professor Richard H. Pildes told The New York Times, “that inevitably raises serious questions about an originalist justification for the court’s looming approach.”

Nelson concluded his article by issuing a warning about how upcoming decisions could impact the future.

“The current Supreme Court may likewise see itself as interpreting the Constitution for the ages, and perhaps some of the Justices take comfort in the idea that future Presidents will not all have the character of Donald Trump,” Nelson wrote. “But the future is not guaranteed; a President bent on vengeful, destructive, and lawless behavior can do lasting damage to our norms and institutions.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/clarence-thomas-clerk-issues-dire-warning-about-supreme-courts-agenda/?

[phkrause]

Supreme Court rejects Alex Jones’ appeal of $1.4 billion defamation judgment in Sandy Hook shooting

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected an appeal from conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and left in place the $1.4 billion judgment against him over his description of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as a hoax staged by crisis actors.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-newtown-shooting-alex-jones-infowars-ddcdede90c0c8d2710c768fd0ea9946f?

[phkrause]

Supreme Court seems inclined to limit race-based electoral districts under the Voting Rights Act

The Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared inclined to limit the use of the Voting Rights Act to force states to draw electoral districts favorable to minority voters. The court's six conservative justices seemed like they would vote to effectively strike down a Black majority House district in Louisiana because it relied too heavily on race. Such an outcome could mark a fundamental change in the 1965 voting rights law, the centerpiece legislation of the Civil Rights Movement. Read more.

RELATED COVERAGE ➤

Why a Supreme Court case from Louisiana will matter for the future of the Voting Rights Act This family visit to a military base ended with ICE deporting a Marine’s dad

[phkrause]

⚖️ The Supreme Court seems likely to roll back a key piece of the Voting Rights Act, in a case that could pave the way for red states to eliminate a slew of majority-Black congressional districts. Go deeper.

[phkrause]

Supreme Court Signals It Could Cement GOP House for Decades

The court heard arguments in a case that could erode provisions of the Voting Rights Act.

The conservative-leaning Supreme Court signaled that it could limit the use of race as a factor in drawing congressional districts, a move that could allow red states to redraw districts, potentially giving Republicans control of Congress for decades.

The court heard arguments on Wednesday in the case Louisiana v. Callais, which examined Section 2 of the landmark 1965 civil rights legislation, the Voting Rights Act, a provision that the court has been slowly chipping away at for more than a decade.

President Donald Trump has been pressuring red states to redraw congressional maps to give Republicans more optimal positioning ahead of the 2026 midterms, but the court’s decision in this case could have much further reaching implications.

Section 2 has been interpreted to require the creation of majority-minority districts. Should the conservative court strike it down, it paves the way for Republicans to potentially do away with more than a dozen districts held by Democrats across the South, where gerrymandering efforts had previously been somewhat restricted.

In a House where Republicans currently hold 219 seats while Democrats hold 213, even the slight shifts have a significant impact on who holds control of the chamber. It flipped from blue to red as recently as 2022.

A change resulting from the court’s ruling could have long-lasting effects in states across the country. The end of Section 2 could result in Republicans picking up 12 seats, according to an analysis from The New York Times.

While the court heard the case on Wednesday, it typically does not issue a ruling until the end of the term, meaning late June or early July.

That makes it hard to determine when the results of the ruling would hit should states get a green light to redistrict without race playing the same role it has had in the past.

The midterms take place next November, with a series of filing deadlines and primaries taking place throughout the first part of the year before the court typically hands down its decision.

Both Democrats and Republicans have accused members of the other party of attempting to hold onto power in this fight.

The case, brought by a group of 12 self-described “non-African-American” voters, examines whether Louisiana lawmakers violated the 14th and 15th Amendments of the Constitution when they redrew the state’s maps back in 2024 to create a second majority-Black district.

Just last year, the court declined to issue a ruling when hearing whether to leave the state’s 2024 map in place. It instead set it for rearguments in the next term, which started last week.

On Wednesday, some conservative justices on the court focused on whether there should be a time limit for allowing race to be used in the drawing of congressional maps, as the legislation protecting majority-minority districts stems from the civil rights era and reverses longtime efforts to suppress Black voters.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh said recent rulings found “race-based remedies are permissible” but that they should “not be indefinite” and should have an “end point.” Chief Justice John Roberts also weighed in by questioning what size the role of race should play.

A lawyer representing Black voters argued that the only reason there is the current diversity in representation in the South is because of litigation under the Voting Rights Act.

Louisiana redrew its maps in 2024 to create two majority-minority districts after a group of Black voters challenged the congressional district lines, which were drawn by Republican state lawmakers in 2022 following the 2020 census. That map included five majority-White districts and one majority-Black district. However, the census showed a third of the state’s population is Black.

A federal judge at the time agreed the original maps violated the Voting Rights Act and diluted the voting power of Black voters, so the state had to go back and redraw its districts resulting in the current ones being challenged in court.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/supreme-court-signals-it-could-cement-gop-house-for-decades/?

[phkrause]

Why SCOTUS Is Finally About to Deal Trump a Stinging Blow

E. Jean Carroll’s lawyer is confident the justices won’t bail the president out this time.

President Donald Trump will soon have to face the consequences for sexually abusing and defaming journalist E. Jean Carroll, her lawyer predicted.

The president has asked the Supreme Court to overturn a $5 million verdict that a jury awarded Carroll in May 2023, but the justices are not likely to take the case, Carroll’s attorney Roberta Kaplan said in Tuesday’s episode of The Daily Beast Podcast.

“There’s nothing in that case that’s SCOTUS worthy,” she told host Joanna Coles. The case has been appealed on evidentiary issues, with Trump’s lawyers arguing that the district judge should not have allowed a woman to testify about Trump accosting and assaulting her on an airplane in 1979.

Usually, lawyers cannot introduce prior “bad acts” as evidence of a specific wrongdoing, but the federal rules of evidence were specifically amended to allow that type of testimony in sexual assault cases, Kaplan explained.

The Supreme Court typically doesn’t take these types of evidentiary questions, particularly in civil cases, she said. In Trump’s case, there’s even less reason to add the case to the Supreme Court docket because of the federal appellate court’s findings, she added.

“Here, the Second Circuit concluded that even if the court had been incorrect in admitting her testimony, it’s what’s called ‘harmless error’ because we had another 10 or 11 witnesses, and they had zero,” Kaplan said.

The appellate court ruled that even if the testimony was improperly admitted, it didn’t change the case’s outcome.

“That’s why I’m pretty confident [the Supreme Court justices] won’t take it,” Kaplan said.

Carroll has successfully sued Trump twice after he sexually abused her in the Bergdorf Goodman department store in New York City.

After Carroll described the attack in 2019 in a New York magazine article and in her book What Do We Need Men For?: A Modest Proposal, Trump accused her of lying and said he had never met her.

Carroll then sued Trump for defamation, and eventually received the $5 million judgment.

In 2022, while the first case was ongoing, Trump accused Carroll in a Truth Social post of inventing the encounter to sell books.

The author filed a second suit for defamation and added a claim for sexual battery under the newly passed Adult Survivors Act, which allowed sexual-assault victims to file civil suits beyond the expired statute of limitations.

That jury found Trump liable in 2024 for $83.3 million, which Kaplan called the big verdict, she told Coles.

The case is about a year behind the first case in terms of making its way through the appeals process, Kaplan said.

The $5 million for the first verdict has been sitting in an account held by the court, accruing interest. If the Supreme Court rejects Trump’s appeal, Carroll will finally receive the money, Kaplan said.

Carroll told Coles she wants to give most of the money to “everything Donald Trump hates,” including efforts to strengthen women’s reproductive rights and voting rights.

The Daily Beast has reached out to Trump’s outside counsel for comment.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-the-supreme-court-is-finally-about-to-deal-donald-trump-a-stinging-blow-in-the-e-jean-carroll-case/?

[phkrause]

Tariffs are Trump’s favorite foreign policy tool. The Supreme Court could change how he uses them

President Donald Trump sees tariffs — or the threat of them — as a powerful tool to bend nations to his will. This week, the Supreme Court hears arguments on whether Trump has overstepped federal law with many of his tariffs. A ruling against him could limit or even take away that swift and blunt leverage that much of his foreign policy has relied on. Read more.

[phkrause]

Tariffs on Trial

The Supreme Court will hear arguments today on President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs. The ruling, expected before July, could clarify the boundaries of presidential power. Trump was the first president to invoke the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to levy tariffs, after declaring the inflow of fentanyl and persistent trade deficits as national emergencies. The 1977 law, which authorizes presidents to regulate imports during emergencies, has historically been interpreted to allow presidents to impose sanctions. Former President George W. Bush, for example, used the act to freeze assets following 9/11. The law does not mention tariffs (explore 101), duties, taxes, or similar terms, leading lower courts to rule that Trump exceeded his authority. The administration argues tariffs are a way to regulate imports, although they traditionally require congressional authorization.  Today's challenge before the Supreme Court was brought by 12 states and several small businesses, including a toymaker that lowered 2025 revenue projections from $1M to $400K due to tariffs.

[phkrause]

Supreme Court issues emergency order to block full SNAP food aid payments

BOSTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Friday granted the Trump administration’s emergency appeal to temporarily block a court order to fully fund SNAP food aid payments amid the government shutdown, even though residents in some states already have received the funds.

https://apnews.com/article/snap-food-government-shutdown-trump-a807e9f0c0a7213e203c074553dc1f9b?

[phkrause]

DeSantis signs death warrant in 1989 murder of Panama City Beach mother

TALLAHASSEE — Expanding a modern-era record for executions in a year, Gov. Ron DeSantis on Friday signed a death warrant for a man convicted of murdering a Bay County woman in 1989.

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/2025/11/07/desantis-signs-death-warrant-in-1989-murder-of-panama-city-beach-mother/?

[phkrause]

Supreme Court rejects call to overturn its decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a call to overturn its landmark decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-50eb4ad421911696e742d8c4fb4962fd?

[phkrause]

Supreme Court to review legality of counting mail ballots arriving after Election Day

The Supreme Court will hear a case challenging the legality of counting mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day, which could have sweeping implications for laws in more than a dozen states.

https://local.newsbreak.com/mississippi-state/4340967939589-supreme-court-to-review-legality-of-counting-mail-ballots-arriving-after-election-day?

Supreme Court extends its order blocking full SNAP payments, with shutdown potentially near an end

The Supreme Court on Tuesday extended an order blocking full SNAP payments, amid signals that the government shutdown could soon end and food aid payments resume.

https://apnews.com/article/government-shutdown-food-aid-024906c49fec6126585900ef916698f8?