2025 SCOTUS Decisions

[BDKJMU]

Tik Tok ban upheld. Doesn’t fall across the usual ideological lines, as have bipartisan conks and donks for the ban, and bipartisan conks and donks against it.

[UNI88]

Roberts rejects Trump's call for impeaching judge who ruled against his deportation plans

“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts said. “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”
...
The Constitution gives the House of Representatives, where Republicans hold a slim majority, the power to impeach a judge with a simple majority vote. But, like a presidential impeachment, any removal requires a vote from a two-thirds majority from the Senate.
...
“What we are seeing is an attempt by one branch of government to intimidate another branch from performing its constitutional duty. It is a direct threat to judicial independence,” Marin Levy, a Duke University School of Law professor who specializes in the federal courts, said in an email.

Only one day earlier, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said, “I have not heard the president talk about impeaching judges.”

And on karoline leavitt's statement. Does she not read her boss' Lie Social posts?

[BDKJMU]

Roberts rejects Trump's call for impeaching judge who ruled against his deportation plans

“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts said. “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”
...
The Constitution gives the House of Representatives, where Republicans hold a slim majority, the power to impeach a judge with a simple majority vote. But, like a presidential impeachment, any removal requires a vote from a two-thirds majority from the Senate.
...
“What we are seeing is an attempt by one branch of government to intimidate another branch from performing its constitutional duty. It is a direct threat to judicial independence,” Marin Levy, a Duke University School of Law professor who specializes in the federal courts, said in an email.

Only one day earlier, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said, “I have not heard the president talk about impeaching judges.”

And on karoline leavitt's statement. Does she not read her boss' Lie Social posts?

So how did the other 8 justices vote in this case?

[UNI88]

Roberts rejects Trump's call for impeaching judge who ruled against his deportation plans

And on carolyn leavitt's statement. Does she not read her boss' Lie Social posts?

So how did the other 8 justices vote in this case?

What case? This was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States commenting about the Radical Right Lunatics calling for the impeachment of judges.

[BDKJMU]

So how did the other 8 justices vote in this case?

What case? This was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States commenting about the Radical Right Lunatics calling for the impeachment of judges.

This is the ‘2025 SCOTUS Decisions’ thread.

[UNI88]

What case? This was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States commenting about the Radical Right Lunatics calling for the impeachment of judges.

This is the ‘2025 SCOTUS Decisions’ thread.

1) It wasn't a "decision" but it was "the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States commenting about the Radical Right Lunatics calling for the impeachment of judges."

2) Wouuld you like me to paraphrase you in response when CH and Bobqat post things in threads that aren't even close to the right place?

[UNI88]

Chief Justice John Roberts stresses judicial independence amid tensions with Trump

“The judiciary is a coequal branch of government, separate from the others with the authority to interpret the Constitution as law, and strike down, obviously, acts of Congress or acts of the president,” Roberts said at an event in his native Buffalo, New York.

The judiciary’s role, Roberts added, is to “decide cases but, in the course of that, check the excesses of Congress or the executive.”
...
“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts said in his earlier statement. “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

[BDKJMU]

8-0
Supreme Court limits judges' authority to block infrastructure projects over environmental concerns
Justices say courts must defer to agencies unless their decisions fall outside a 'broad zone of reasonableness'
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/suprem ... l-concerns

[UNI88]

Trump tariffs face threat at Supreme Court — over rulings that blocked Biden

During Biden’s presidency, the court’s conservative majority ruled that federal agencies can’t decide sweeping political and economic matters without clear congressional authorization. That blocked the Environmental Protection Agency from setting deep limits on power-plant pollution and the Education Department from slashing student loans for 40 million people.

The concept — known as the “major questions doctrine” — is now playing a central role in the case against Trump’s unilateral imposition of worldwide import taxes. With Supreme Court review all but inevitable, the justices’ willingness to employ the doctrine against Trump may determine the fate of his signature economic initiative.

[BDKJMU]

Trump tariffs face threat at Supreme Court — over rulings that blocked Biden

During Biden’s presidency, the court’s conservative majority ruled that federal agencies can’t decide sweeping political and economic matters without clear congressional authorization. That blocked the Environmental Protection Agency from setting deep limits on power-plant pollution and the Education Department from slashing student loans for 40 million people.

The concept — known as the “major questions doctrine” — is now playing a central role in the case against Trump’s unilateral imposition of worldwide import taxes. With Supreme Court review all but inevitable, the justices’ willingness to employ the doctrine against Trump may determine the fate of his signature economic initiative.

SCOTUS might or might not shut off one avenue. Trump still has others.

Finally, a judge steps in to keep Trump from throwing another grenade into the global economy.

Not So Fast: Federal Circuit Halts Trade Court Ruling on Trump Tariffs
https://redstate.com/smoosieq/2025/05/2 ... s-n2189788

Going to end up before SCOTUS..

Also even if the Citcuit Court and/or SCOTUS rules against him

2 laws Trump could use to reimpose his tariffs (and why he might use both)

….The most prominent quick strike option is the so-called balance-of-payments authority derived from Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. That power could allow Trump to move quickly, but with a 150-day limit on how long any tariffs can be in place.

The second route is a possible renewed focus on sectoral duties such as "Section 301" or "Section 232" tariffs.

These long-established tariff authorities (one derived from the Trade Act of 1974 and another from a separate Trade Expansion Act of 1962) are ones Trump has used in the past, but with the downside, from his perspective, that they can take time to implement….

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/2-laws-t ... 42332.html

[BDKJMU]

Ames v Ohio 9-0
US Supreme Court makes 'reverse' discrimination suits easier
https://www.reuters.com/business/world- ... 025-06-05/

[BDKJMU]

Another 9-0 decision

Supreme Court sides with US gunmakers in case centered on Mexican cartel violence
The high court’s decision was unanimous, finding that Mexico cannot sue seven gun manufacturers over allegations they aided cartels

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/suprem ... olence.amp

[BDKJMU]

Another 9-0. Of 6 decisions handed down Thursday, 5 were 9-0 and 1 was 8-1. When was the last time that happened?

In Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the state of Wisconsin was violating the First Amendment’s religious freedom protections by denying a faith-based tax break to a group of Catholic nonprofits.

The nonprofits said their service to people in need was clearly motivated by Catholic teachings, but Wisconsin officials said they didn’t qualify for the religious exemption to the state’s unemployment tax because they did not seek to serve only Catholics or evangelize to their clients, as the Deseret News previously reported.

State officials won in front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which said that the Catholic nonprofits’ work did not serve “primarily religious purposes.”

In Thursday’s unanimous decision, the Supreme Court reversed that decision, ruling that Wisconsin was violating the First Amendment by privileging certain religious beliefs and actions over others...

https://www.deseret.com/politics/2025/0 ... ngs-today/

[BDKJMU]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/scotus ... k-case.amp

[BDKJMU]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/scotus ... k-case.amp

Below could also go on Culture Wars or Dem Civil War threads.

Democrats’ Wary Response to Transgender Ruling Shows the Party’s Retreat
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/18/us/p ... uling.html

Unfortunately donk leadership is wising up to the fact that most Americans don‘t want to allow puberty blockers and genital mutilation for minors, and that they have to stop bowing down to the woke trans ideologist loons in their base.

[BDKJMU]

YUGE! win for Trump!

[BDKJMU]

ACB dunking on KBJ:

imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary."

[kalm]

YUGE! win for Trump!

May not be a terrible ruling. We’ll see. The issue is a two way street.

Aside…anyone remember when R’s were anti federalism?

[BDKJMU]

Another huge 6-3 against the woke trans agenda being pushed on young school children.

[BDKJMU]

Another 6-3 today upholding age verification for porn sites:

[Bobcat]

America is BACK

Thanks to our Rockstar President Trump!

For the first time in 4 years I am proud of my country again

[GannonFan]

YUGE! win for Trump!

May not be a terrible ruling. We’ll see. The issue is a two way street.

Aside…anyone remember when R’s were anti federalism?

The ruling itself is grounded and just. The real question will be on the impact going forward and the speed through the courts to address true injustices and wrongs. Nationwide injunctions were being abused and have certainly been a recent phenomenon. But you're right, Republicans rejoicing today will also be gnashing their teeth in potentially 4 years when the next Democratic President does something they don't like. But in general, this is the preferred outcome judicially.

[Caribbean Hen]

And the New Yor Rican judge Soto continues her perfect record of getting everything wrong

What a shame for the Isla

[kalm]

The more I think about the more it calls into question. Would SCOTUS have the guts to overturn the 14th amendment in the fall?

Will district court decisions on any constitutional matter matter be left to stand at least in that district or once SCOTUS gets around to ruling on them? If a kid is granted citizenship in one state or district will they not be considered a citizen in another? What about gun laws? Or shoukd every case just go straight to SCOTUS

There seems to be potential here for some serious confusion and contradiction on a national level.

[Pwns]

I'm going to be honest, it's surprising to me that is took 200+ years of judicial review for this question to be answered.

It took until the Trump administration for the question to arise. To me that says the ruling is just the liberal justices wanting to make Trump less dangerous. Well, that's not a good legal reason.

In other news, it may be the first time a branch of government has reduces its own powers.