The U.S. Supreme Court

[phkrause]

Louisiana prison guards cut a Rastafari inmate’s dreadlocks. Supreme Court will decide if he can sue

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday wrestled with whether a former Louisiana inmate can sue prison officials who cut off his dreadlocks in violation of his Rastafari religious beliefs.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-prison-inmate-dreadlocks-rastafari-louisiana-c7c9b37c5d82b74b1685746461025f00?

[phkrause]

• ?? The Supreme Court will take up a case that could determine where asylum protections begin along the U.S.-Mexico border. Go deeper.

[phkrause]

Supreme Court blocks order that found Texas congressional map is likely racially biased

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday temporarily blocked a lower court ruling that found Texas’ 2026 congressional redistricting plan pushed by President Donald Trump likely discriminates on the basis of race.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-texas-redistricting-trump-republicans-discrimination-c1bbf88e2a1f7d49cda512b8ef165750?

[phkrause]

⚖️ Supreme Court's next big ruling

Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios

The Supreme Court is expected to rule any day on Texas' controversial congressional map, with a decision likely before Dec. 8, the filing deadline for candidates in Texas, Axios' Hans Nichols writes. Why it matters: An anticipated ruling would mark the high court's first word on the redistricting wars that have defined the 2026 cycle. It wouldn't be the last: Lawsuits are anticipated from California to North Carolina. Last night, Texas filed its final response for why its new map, drafted at President Trump's urging to give the GOP five new seats, should survive. ? Zoom out: The court's more consequential ruling — testing Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the future of minority-majority districts — is expected by next June. The court's decision in that case, Louisiana v. Callais, is unlikely to alter the 2026 battlefield. But it could fundamentally reorder maps in 2028 and 2030 — and upend the racial makeup of the House.

[phkrause]

Cox v. Sony

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments yesterday in Cox Communications v. Sony Music—a case that could determine internet service providers’ level of responsibility for pirated content on their networks. In 2023, pirated movies and TV shows were downloaded nearly 19 billion times, costing the US economy more than $29B, per industry estimates. That same year, music piracy sites saw more than 17 billion visits. Most internet service providers are part of a voluntary alert system to crack down on piracy. Cox—the US’ third-largest broadband provider—is not.  Entertainment companies say Cox's inaction has allowed customers to illegally distribute over 10,000 copyrighted works. In 2019, a jury sided with Sony, compelling Cox to pay $1B in damages. Cox is appealing the verdict, saying it should not be held liable for actions it does not take. The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the case by June of next year.

[phkrause]

✅ Texas maps stand

The Supreme Court, in its first ruling on the redistricting wars of the 2026 cycle, appears willing to defer to states. In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled Texas' controversial congressional map will stand for the upcoming midterms. Why it matters: That will help Republicans in Texas, where GOP mapmakers tried to draw an additional five seats for their party. The state's filing deadline is on Dec. 8. It could also mean that Gov. Gavin Newsom's effort to do something similar for Democrats in California will also survive. — Hans Nichols Congressional map The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for Texas to use newly redrawn congressional maps that strongly favor Republicans — a major win for the party ahead of the midterm elections. Under the redistricting, Texas Republicans could gain as many as five additional House seats, boosting their chances of holding on to their razor-thin majority in the chamber. However, legal fights over redistricting are far from over. The Justice Department recently sued officials in California over new maps designed to give Democrats in the Golden State an advantage. A court is set to hear arguments in that case next month.   The Supreme Court will decide whether Trump’s birthright citizenship order violates the Constitution WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to take up the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s order on birthright citizenship declaring that children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens. https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-birthright-citizenship-14th-amendment-873a45bc58de9e92773f554bf5bba9a0?

[phkrause]

US supreme court to decide on legality of Trump birthright citizenship order

The US supreme court agreed on Friday to decide the legality of Donald Trump’s order to heavily restrict the right to birthright citizenship, the long-held constitutional principle that individuals born on US soil are automatically United States citizens.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/05/birthright-citizenship-legality-scotus-trump?

The Supreme Court weighs another step in favor of broad presidential power sought by Trump

Chief Justice John Roberts has led the Supreme Court’s conservative majority on a steady march of increasing the power of the presidency. And that began well before Donald Trump’s time in the White House. The justices could take the next step in a case being argued Monday that calls for the overturning of a unanimous 90-year-old decision that limits executive authority. Read more.   Supreme Court seems likely to back Trump’s power to fire independent agency board members WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday seemed likely to expand presidential control over independent federal agencies, signaling support for President Donald Trump’s firing of board members. https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-executive-power-firings-boards-e45b572f8140ffcdfacbe82ba0b896ef?

[phkrause]

Supreme Court The Supreme Court appears ready to back President Donald Trump's argument that he should have the authority to fire members of independent government agencies. For nearly a century, federal law has shielded those entities from direct White House control. The court's liberal justices on Monday warned that Trump's push could dramatically expand his presidential power and upend the structure of the modern federal government. In recent months, Trump has already fired some leaders of independent agencies appointed by former President Joe Biden — many of whom were likely critics. A ruling in the case is expected by the end of June. SCOTUS Considers Firings

The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments yesterday in Trump v. Slaughter—a case that could expand presidential authority over independent agencies.  The case centers on President Donald Trump’s decision to fire Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Kelly Slaughter without cause. That decision defied a 1914 law—and a subsequent 1935 Supreme Court ruling—that says FTC members can be removed only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance.” The court yesterday appeared poised to overturn or limit its 1935 ruling, which Chief Justice John Roberts characterized as a “dried husk.” Roberts cited the FTC's expanded executive functions in the past 90 years, which could place it under the executive branch’s purview. Trump has fired members of various agencies, citing unitary executive theory (see explanation). While yesterday's legal challenge could have implications for those cases, the Supreme Court suggests Trump’s firing of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook is different because that agency is structured uniquely as a quasi-private entity.

[phkrause]

?️ Scoop: GOP expects SCOTUS boost

Illustration: Shoshana Gordon/Axios

President Trump's political team privately told big GOP donors that the Supreme Court will soon issue rulings on voting rights and contribution limits that could tilt future elections their way, Axios' Alex Isenstadt writes. Bullish Trump lieutenants Chris LaCivita and Tony Fabrizio told a Republican National Committee retreat in New Orleans over the weekend that rulings on political contribution limits and congressional redistricting will be transformational if they break the GOP's way. LaCivita and Fabrizio — who steer the president's cash-flush political operation and were senior strategists on his 2024 campaign — expressed confidence in the midterms despite doomsday projections for the party. During a Q&A with RNC chair Joe Gruters, LaCivita told donors the conservative-led high court has "the ability to upend the political map," a person in the room told Axios. The two cases Trump's team believes could help Republicans maintain power: 1. Louisiana v. Callais. The court is set to decide whether to gut Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act — the 1965 law that resulted in the creation of districts designed for minority voters. For years, Republicans have sought to weaken the law, arguing that it constitutes federal overreach and unfairly creates Democratic-friendly districts. 2. National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC. The court hears oral arguments today in a case that could eliminate a federal law capping how much big-money party committees can spend in direct coordination with favored candidates. It's widely seen as the most consequential campaign finance case since Citizens United.

[phkrause]

Alabama Begs Supreme Court to Make It Easier to Execute People With Intellectual Disabilities

Alabama Deputy Solicitor general Robert Overing approached the podium at the U.S. Supreme Court on a mission: to convince the justices that 55-year-old Joseph Clifton Smith should be put to death.

https://theintercept.com/2025/12/14/hamm-v-smith-supreme-court-death-penalty-disability/?

[phkrause]

As Supreme Court pulls back on gerrymandering, state courts may decide fate of maps

After Missouri lawmakers passed a gerrymandered congressional map this fall, opponents submitted more than 300,000 signatures seeking to force a statewide vote on whether to overturn the map. But Republican state officials say they will use the map in the meantime.

https://floridaphoenix.com/2025/12/22/repub/as-supreme-court-pulls-back-on-gerrymandering-state-courts-may-decide-fate-of-maps/?

Supreme Court keeps Trump’s National Guard deployment blocked in the Chicago area, for now

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to allow the Trump administration to deploy National Guard troops in the Chicago area to support its immigration crackdown, a significant defeat for the president’s efforts to send troops to U.S. cities.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-national-guard-97192a48f01dd4954f1ba505628b5f21?

[phkrause]

SCOTUS Justice’s Blistering Dissent Vindicated by Bombshell Study

Liberal Ketanji Brown Jackson has warned about the court’s damaged reputation.

A new study has bolstered a scathing dissent from liberal Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson that warned the court appeared to favor the rich.

The study, published Monday by the National Bureau of Economic Research, investigated whether the Supreme Court has contributed to rising income inequality by ruling in favor of policies that favor wealthy parties.

Its authors—two academics from Columbia University in New York and one from Yale University—found that in cases pitting the rich against the poor, Republican appointees were far more likely than their Democratic colleagues to side with the wealthier party.

Back in 1953, Democratic and Republican appointees were statistically indistinguishable on the issue, with justices appointed by members of both parties favoring the rich in 45 percent of cases on average.

By 2022, the average Republican-appointed justice was voting in favor of the rich a whopping 70 percent of the time.

The average Democratic justice cast a “pro-rich” vote—which was defined as a vote that would directly shift resources to the party that was more likely to be wealthy, including votes that supported businesses over consumers or workers—just 35 percent of the time.

“The results reveal a steady increase in polarization, mostly due to Republican appointees whose decisions rise from about 50 percent pro-rich share to a 70 percent pro-rich share over the course of 70 years,” the study’s authors, Andrea Prat, a Columbia economics professor, Jacob Spitz, a Columbia PhD student, Fiona Scott Morton, a Yale economics professor, and wrote.

The findings also supported a June dissent authored by Brown Jackson, according to The New York Times.

The justices held 7-2 that oil and gas companies had legal standing to challenge California’s environmental regulations requiring automakers to produce more electric vehicles and fewer gasoline-powered ones.

“This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens,” Brown Jackson wrote. “I worry that the fuel industry’s gain comes at a reputational cost for this Court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests.”

That perception could be contributing to an overall drop in public confidence in the court, according to the Times. The Daily Beast has reached out to the Supreme Court for comment.

The court’s favorability rating has plunged by 22 points over the past five years, from 70 percent in 2020 to a near-record low 48 percent late last year, the Pew Research Center reported in September.

And although a vast majority of Americans, or 86 percent, think the justices should be non-partisan, 56 percent said the justices were doing only a fair or poor job of keeping their political views out of their legal decision-making.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/scotus-justice-ketanji-brown-jacksons-blistering-dissent-vindicated-by-bombshell-study/?

[phkrause]

Transgender Athletes Cases

The Supreme Court will hear its first-ever cases today on transgender athletes' participation in sports. The outcome of the cases—originating in Idaho and West Virginia—is likely to impact laws across more than 20 states with similar measures (see map). Boise State University student Lindsay Hecox, 24, sued Idaho over its 2020 law barring transgender athletes from women's and girls' sports teams at public schools of all levels, including public colleges. Fifteen-year-old Becky Pepper-Jackson, who has publicly identified as a girl since the third grade and has been taking puberty-blocking medication, challenged a similar law in West Virginia. Federal courts have blocked the two laws on the grounds that they discriminate "on the basis of sex" in violation of Title IX (see explainer). The states have appealed, arguing sex and gender identity are separate matters. An estimated 122,000 transgender teenagers participate in high school sports—a little over 1% of the US' more than 8 million teenage athletes. See public perceptions on the topic here.

[phkrause]

Trump v. Cook

The Supreme Court will hear arguments today over President Donald Trump’s effort to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, in a case that tests presidential power over independent agencies and the central bank’s insulation from politics. Trump announced Cook’s firing on social media in August, citing mortgage fraud allegations involving home loans that predate her 2022 appointment, which she denies. Cook sued, arguing the Federal Reserve Act allows removal only “for cause”—the law restricts presidential removals but does not explicitly define the term “cause”—and that her Fed seat is a protected property interest requiring notice and a chance to respond under the Fifth Amendment. A federal district judge temporarily blocked the firing in September. Trump’s lawyers say the limits infringe on his constitutional authority under the unitary executive theory, while Cook’s team argues the allegations are untested and unrelated to her duties. A decision is expected by late June.

[phkrause]

Supreme Court allows new California congressional districts that favor Democrats

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed California to use a new voter-approved congressional map that is favorable to Democrats in this year’s elections, rejecting a last-ditch plea from state Republicans and the Trump administration.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-california-congressional-maps-8362a34b739ea91d37a190eee1b6a6d1?

[phkrause]

⏳ Decision Day looms for tariffs

Illustration: Maura Kearns/Axios

The Supreme Court could decide as soon as today or next week whether President Trump can preserve the sweeping tariffs that anchor his trade agenda, Axios' Courtenay Brown writes. After small businesses sued to block Trump's tariffs last year, a quick ruling was expected. The delay underscores the enormity of a decision that, either way, could rattle the global economy. In November, several justices signaled skepticism of the administration's legal case. Since then: 📦 The U.S. goods trade deficit hit a record in 2025 — even after Trump declared "large and persistent" deficits a national emergency to justify his "Liberation Day" tariffs. New data show the gap widened despite the levies. 🏛️ Congress took a (symbolic) tariff stand. Six Republicans voted with Democrats earlier this month to repeal tariffs on Canada, a rare rebuke of Trump's signature economic policy. 💰 Tariff burden in spotlight. New York Federal Reserve Bank researchers calculated that households and businesses paid 90% of last year's tariffs. What to watch: If the Supreme Court rejects the legality of part or all of the tariffs, it could trigger a chaotic refund process and tilt the nation's fiscal outlook. The administration says it would reimpose any overturned tariffs using other trade authorities, though it's unclear how long that might take. Go deeper ...

[phkrause]

Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s sweeping tariffs, sparking fierce pushback and vow of new levies

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump’s far-reaching global tariffs on Friday, handing him a stinging loss that sparked a furious attack on the court he helped shape.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-tariffs-trump-0485fcda30a7310501123e4931dba3f9?

[phkrause]

🏛️ What the court said

The Supreme Court today in Washington, D.C. Photo: Heather Diehl/Getty Images

Justice Neil Gorsuch, in a concurring opinion, acknowledged the decision would be disappointing for tariff fans. ⚖️ But the Trump-appointed justice emphasized the importance of the "deliberative nature" of the legislative process — which the administration bypassed through the emergency power. "For some today, the weight of those virtues is apparent," he wrote. "For others, it may not seem so obvious. But if history is any guide, the tables will turn and the day will come when those disappointed by today's result will appreciate the legislative process for the bulwark of liberty it is." Go deeper ... Read the opinion.

[phkrause]

Supreme Court rules the Postal Service can’t be sued, even when mail is intentionally not delivered

A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that Americans can’t sue the U.S. Postal Service, even when employees deliberately refuse to deliver mail. By a 5-4 vote, the justices ruled against a Texas landlord, Lebene Konan, who alleges her mail was intentionally withheld for two years. Konan, who is Black, claims racial prejudice played a role in postal employees’ actions. Read more.

[phkrause]

Supreme Court rules against private prison firm facing forced-work suit from immigration detainees

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled against a private prison company facing a lawsuit alleging immigration detainees were forced to work and paid only $1 a day in Colorado. The unanimous ruling is a procedural defeat for the GEO Group, but it’s not a final decision. GEO defended its practices and argued that the case should be tossed out because it’s immune from lawsuits as a government contractor. Read more.

[phkrause]

Supreme Court blocks law against schools outing transgender students to their parents in California

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court cleared the way Monday for California schools to tell parents if their children identify as transgender without getting the student’s approval, granting an emergency appeal from a conservative legal group.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-transgender-students-california-cca311ae39d267f31c1392a0bcf780cd?

[phkrause]

Supreme Court to hear arguments over push to end legal protections for migrants from Haiti, Syria

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court will hear arguments over the Trump administration’s push to end legal protections for people fleeing war and natural disaster from countries around the world, including Haiti and Syria.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-migrant-protections-haiti-syria-3b3f42bffff1ca2c3a4e8ec5fc9f1765?

[phkrause]

Apache women seek court intervention as federal land is turned over for copper mining

The transfer of federal forest land in Arizona to a pair of international companies that plan to mine one of the largest copper deposits in North America is complete, but a group of Apache women is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene as a last-ditch effort to stop the project.

https://apnews.com/article/arizona-oak-flat-copper-mining-apache-024697a87552094c70abf8afa0ed8241?

[phkrause]

Supreme Court sounds skeptical of late-arriving ballots, a Trump target

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ‘s conservative majority on Monday sounded skeptical of state laws that allow the counting of late-arriving mail ballots, a persistent target of President Donald Trump.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-elections-mailed-ballots-a516e60209e68642f4d74947fa06017f?

ps:Isn't that interesting? All these years that that has been going on and now we're skeptical?? Not once has that ever changed the outcome of a presidential election!!!

pss:This was a AI generaided answer to my question about the outcome of presidential elections:

Late-arriving ballots have never changed the outcome of a presidential election. Historical data shows that while counting delays can occur, particularly with mail-in ballots, these late ballots have not influenced the final results in presidential races. For instance, during the 2020 election, the counting of absentee ballots extended the announcement of results but did not alter the declared winner.

Context on Ballot Counting

• Absentee Voting: The process of counting absentee ballots can be lengthy, especially in swing states, leading to delays in results.
• Election Night Expectations: Experts anticipate that similar delays may occur in future elections, as seen in 2020.
• Legal Considerations: Ongoing legal discussions about ballot deadlines may also impact future elections, but historically, late ballots have not changed outcomes.

[phkrause]

Supreme Court sounds skeptical of late-arriving ballots, a Trump target

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority sounds skeptical of state laws that allow the counting of late-arriving mail ballots, a persistent target of Trump. The high court was hearing arguments Monday in a case from Mississippi that also could affect voters in 13 other states and the District of Columbia, which have grace periods for ballots cast by mail. An additional 15 states that have more forgiving deadlines for ballots from military and overseas voters also could be impacted. A ruling is expected by late June, early enough to govern the counting of ballots in the 2026 midterm congressional elections. Read more.

RELATED COVERAGE ➤

Supreme Court rejects appeal from online citizen journalist over her arrest in Texas Supreme Court rejects appeal from Texas death row inmate Rodney Reed