Tag Archives: Supreme Court of the United States

SCOTUS allows Trump Muslim ban enforcement, but says it must allow broader exemptions for relatives

Source: Washington Post

"The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed the Trump administration to enforce its refu­gee ban for now, but said it must allow broader exemptions to the president’s travel ban for family members, including grandparents. The justices in a short order refused the administration’s request that it stay a lower court’s decision that said the Trump administration had too severely interpreted the court’s decision last month about exempting those with close family relationships. The justices on Wednesday said the government’s appeal of the lower court should go through normal channels, with the next stop at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit." (07/19/17)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-allows-trump-travel-ban-enforcement-but-says-it-must-allow-broader-exemptions-for-relatives/2017/07/19/6945e01e-6bf8-11e7-96ab-5f38140b38cc_story.html

TX: Supreme Court rules that state can discriminate against same-sex married couples

Source: Austin-American Statesman

"Finding no established right to spousal benefits in same-sex marriages, a unanimous Texas Supreme Court on Friday revived a lawsuit challenging the city of Houston’s insurance plans for married gay employees. According to the all-Republican Texas court, the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that established the right to same-sex marriage did not decide all marriage-related matters, leaving room for state courts to explore the decision’s 'reach and ramifications.' Advocates of same-sex marriage reacted with dismay and anger, arguing that the Texas court ignored clear and undeniable instructions from the nation’s highest court." (06/30/17)

http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-supreme-court-inherent-right-gay-marriage-benefits/YhIJSUN9u9Uy2d8n0exU2I/

Trump, immigration and the Supreme Court

Source: LewRockwell.com
by Andrew P Napolitano

"Earlier this week, after nearly uniform rejections by judges all across the country, President Donald Trump achieved a court victory in the persistent challenges to his most recent executive order restricting the immigration of people into the United States from six predominately Muslim countries. Lower federal courts had consistently ruled that the president’s behavior was animated by an anti-Muslim bias — a bias he forcefully articulated during the presidential election campaign — concluding that what appeared to be, on its face, a travel ban based rationally on national security needs was in reality a 'Muslim ban' based on religious fear, prejudice or hatred. The Supreme Court unanimously saw it differently. Here is the back story." (06/28/17)

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/06/andrew-p-napolitano/immigration-supreme-court/

Another bleak Supreme Court decision for property rights

Source: Cato Institute
by Roger Pilon

"Property owners have long suffered under the Supreme Court’s erratic rulings. It got worse last Friday when the court ruled against owners who wanted simply to sell their property. Both facts and law in Murr v. Wisconsin are complicated. But in a nutshell, the Murrs, four siblings, inherited adjoining lots on the St. Croix River that their parents had purchased at separate times in the 1960s, building a home on one and keeping the other as an investment. Deeded and taxed separately, the two lots remained so to the present. But in 1975 a local zoning ordinance combined the lots. The effect, as the Murrs discovered in 2004 when they sought to sell the investment lot (valued at $410,000), was to prohibit them from doing so unless they sold the other lot and house with it." (06/28/17)

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/another-bleak-supreme-court-decision-property-rights

SCOTUS: Second Amendment doesn't apply in California, but does in Iowa

Source: USA Today

"The Supreme Court refused Monday to take on the next big battle over the Second Amendment: carrying guns in public. The justices won't hear a challenge to a California law that limits who can carry a concealed gun in public — a restriction that proponents of gun rights consider unconstitutional, but which the high court has yet to decide. In a related case, the justices also refused to hear the federal government's appeal of a lower court ruling that allowed two men with criminal records to win back [sic] their right to possess firearms despite a lifetime federal ban." (06/26/17)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/26/supreme-court-wont-rule-carrying-guns-public/101610512/

SCOTUS reinstates much of Trump's Muslim ban, will hear case in fall

Source: NBC News

"The U.S. Supreme Court gave the Trump administration the go-ahead Monday to begin enforcing part of the president's executive order restricting travel from six predominately Muslim countries. The court also agreed to take up the Trump administration's appeal of lower court rulings that have prevented the government from carrying out the president's policy, which the White House said was necessary to help prevent terrorists from entering the country. … The Supreme Court's actions mean much the travel ban can be enforced for the next several months, at least until the justices hear the case when their new term begins in the fall." (06/26/17)

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-reinstates-much-trump-s-travel-ban-will-hear-n776711

SCOTUS to hear case of attempt to enslave Colorado baker

Source: Los Angeles Times

"Supreme Court justices voted to hear an appeal from the owner of a Colorado bakery who refused to create and design a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The high court has agreed to hear a major case pitting conservative Christian beliefs against gay rights, and decide whether some business owners may cite their religious views as a reason for refusing to serve same-sex couples. … Jack Phillips, the owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo., was charged with violating the state’s anti-discrimination law, which says businesses open to the public may not deny service to customers based on their race, religion, sex or sexual orientation. The state commission held that his refusal to make the wedding cake amounted to discriminatory conduct, and the state courts upheld that decision." [editor's note: Religious beliefs shouldn't be treated as the crux of the matter — people are either free or they are slaves, and any law requiring them to do work they choose not to do FOR ANY REASON makes them the latter – TLK] (06/26/17)

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-gays-religion-20170626-story.html

SCOTUS limits regime's power to revoke citizenship

Source: The Hill

"The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a naturalized immigrant can’t be stripped of their citizenship for making false statements during the naturalization process that are irrelevant to an immigration official's decision to grant or deny citizenship. A unanimous court said the government must establish that an immigrant’s illegal act during the naturalization process played some role in acquiring citizenship. When the underlying illegal act is a false statement, the justices said a jury must decide whether the false statements altered the naturalization process and influenced the immigration official's decision." (06/22/17)

http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/338948-supreme-court-limits-governments-power-to-revoke-citizenship

SCOTUS: Bush era officials can't be sued for their crimes

Source: Hindustan Times [India]

"The US Supreme Court ruled Monday that senior officials from president George W Bush’s administration cannot be held responsible for abuses against Muslim immigrants and others held in the frantic response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. The 4-2 decision marked a victory for ex-attorney general John Ashcroft and former FBI director Robert Mueller, who have claimed along with other Bush era officials that they have immunity from prosecution. With the court’s ruling — which saw two justices recuse themselves and another skip the vote — Ashcroft and Mueller also avoided being held personally liable. The court was not making a decision on the prisoners’ treatment but rather as to whether the Bush officials should be granted legal protection from lawsuits and damages related to detention policies." (06/20/17)

http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/bush-era-officials-can-t-be-sued-for-post-9-11-abuses-us-supreme-court/story-r6q34TXfWi9jfyIb5Gk8mO.html

Yes, hate speech is free speech

Source: National Review
by Rich Lowry

"With the Left feverishly attempting to squash unwelcome speech on college campuses, with the president of the United States musing about tightening libel laws, with prominent liberals asserting that so-called hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment, free speech in America at least has one reliable friend — the Supreme Court of the United States. In a firm 8-0 decision, the court slapped down the Patent and Trademark Office for denying a band federal trademark registration for the name 'The Slants,' a derogatory term for Asian-Americans. The case involves a very small corner of federal law, but implicates the broader logic of political correctness, which is that speech should be silenced for the greater good if there is a chance that someone, somewhere might be offended by it." (06/20/17)

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448776/slants-supreme-court-matal-v-tam-decision-protects-free-speech