"Biden DOJ Fights for Terrorism Victims' Justice, as Courts Navigate COVID-19 Disruptions"

Listeners, here’s the latest from the United States Supreme Court. The biggest headline from recent days is the fallout from Trump v. CASA, Inc., the birthright citizenship case. The Supreme Court did not make a ruling about who qualifies as a citizen, but instead put an end to the widespread use of nationwide injunctions by federal trial courts. These universal injunctions had allowed a single plaintiff to halt a government policy across the country almost instantly. With the Court’s ruling, judges can now only grant relief to plaintiffs who are parties to a case, so anyone else affected must bring their own lawsuit or join a class action. Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasized that class actions and suits under the Administrative Procedure Act remain pathways for broader relief, and, in fact, civil rights attorneys responded immediately by filing a nationwide class-action suit that quickly led to a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship for all affected children. The government is expected to appeal, and listeners should expect more litigation and perhaps a return to the Supreme Court for a final decision.Marriage equality is also back in focus, as Kim Davis, the former Kentucky clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, has asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its landmark 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. Legal experts believe her case is extremely narrow and unlikely to unsettle existing precedent, as the lower courts have consistently denied her arguments and there is broad consensus that the core ruling will stand.In the background, another major point of tension is the Supreme Court being asked to weigh in on whether immigration agents can use racial profiling—part of broader challenges to the Trump administration’s policies at the intersection of civil rights and immigration enforcement. At the same time, the Court is expected to soon consider a Second Amendment case with drug law implications, which could shape how firearms restrictions intersect with other federal laws.Finally, listeners should know that the Supreme Court’s latest moves are causing ripple effects beyond just headline cases. Advocacy organizations and legal commentators continue to debate the impact of strictly limiting court orders to plaintiffs rather than the whole country, including what it means for civil rights, business, and government policy, as well as concerns about “shadow docket” decisions and emergency relief processes.Thank you for tuning in. Don’t forget to subscribe for more in-depth Supreme Court updates. This has been a quiet please production, for more check out quiet please dot ai.For more http://www.quietplease.aiGet the best deals https://amzn.to/3ODvOtaThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

13 Elo 2min

The Supreme Court’s quiet summer docket has stirred with a handful of consequential developments. According to One First by Steve Vladeck, the justices have two new emergency applications from the Trump administration: one asking the Court to reinstate the termination of certain NIH grants that lower courts blocked as politically motivated, and another seeking to lift a temporary restraining order limiting ICE’s suspicionless “roving patrol” arrests in and around Los Angeles; Justice Kagan has called for a response on the ICE matter, and additional death penalty stay requests could push the Court to tie or break last term’s record for emergency rulings. Vladeck also notes the Court issued four orders last week denying stays of execution for Tennessee inmate Byron Black, with no public dissents, and quietly tweaked its online docket format after a late-June notification glitch.On the merits front looking ahead, ABC News reports that the Court has formally been asked to take a case that directly urges overturning Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 ruling that recognized a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. The petition comes from former Kentucky clerk Kim Davis, who is appealing a jury verdict and fees after refusing to issue marriage licenses; her filing labels Obergefell “egregiously wrong,” setting up a potential fall-term flashpoint if the justices grant review. In the tech and privacy space, MediaPost reports that a web user has asked Justice Brett Kavanaugh for more time to seek Supreme Court review in a Video Privacy Protection Act fight, citing a split between the Second and Sixth Circuits over who counts as a “consumer” when websites share video-viewing data via the Meta Pixel; the NBA and industry groups are urging the Court to step in, warning that the broader reading could upend targeted advertising.Meanwhile, the Regulatory Review highlights immediate ripple effects from the Court’s recent CASA decision curbing nationwide injunctions, explaining that Justice Barrett’s opinion still leaves room for broad relief when necessary to provide complete relief to the parties. The piece points to a Ninth Circuit case upholding a “universal” injunction after CASA, underscoring that courts continue to block national policies when narrower orders won’t suffice, even as the Supreme Court narrows the tool’s use. In the broader policy orbit around the Court, KFF Health News aggregates that public interest groups have decided not to seek Supreme Court review of the Sixth Circuit ruling that struck down the FCC’s net neutrality order and Title II classification, effectively leaving that reversal in place for now as deadlines passed at the end of last week; the same roundup flags an ABC News item on the same-sex marriage challenge returning to the justices’ doorstep.Taken together, listeners should watch for imminent orders on emergency applications tied to immigration enforcement and federal research funding, possible death-penalty stay activity, and a potentially explosive cert decision on whether to revisit marriage equality. At the same time, the Court’s limits on nationwide injunctions are already being tested in the lower courts, and a circuit split on online video privacy could invite the justices’ intervention if extensions are granted and petitions are filed in the coming weeks. Thanks for tuning in, and don’t forget to subscribe. This has been a quiet please production, for more check out quiet please dot ai.For more http://www.quietplease.aiGet the best deals https://amzn.to/3ODvOtaThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

11 Elo 3min

In the latest developments from the US Supreme Court, the justices issued a unanimous ruling upholding a federal law that allows American victims of international terrorism to sue perpetrators in US courts. This decision, in the combined cases of Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization and United States v. Palestine Liberation Organization, validates a law championed by Oklahoma Senator James Lankford. The Court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, rejected arguments from the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian Liberation Organization that such lawsuits would violate constitutional due process. The justices found that the federal government's unique authority under the Fifth Amendment, especially in matters of foreign policy and protecting Americans abroad, supports jurisdiction in these cases. However, the Court stopped short of defining the outer limits of federal power to bring foreign defendants into US courts.Elsewhere, attention remains sharply focused on the Supreme Court’s ongoing impact on abortion rights. The Associated Press reports that former President Donald Trump's judicial appointments, which now make up a substantial portion of the federal bench, continue to align with a legal landscape that allows states significant leeway on abortion regulations. Advocates on both sides recognize that recent and future Supreme Court decisions—and the composition of the Court—will play a critical role in shaping national abortion policy as states test the boundaries post-Roe v. Wade.Second Amendment litigation is also on the Court’s horizon. According to OPB, a Washington State gun shop is seeking Supreme Court review after the state’s highest court ruled that bans on high-capacity magazines do not infringe on constitutional rights, characterizing magazine limits as reasonable regulations. The petition to the justices rests on arguments that such magazine bans conflict with previous Supreme Court interpretations of the Second Amendment, and that there is now division among lower courts requiring resolution.While the Court is currently on its traditional summer recess, headlines continue to reflect on administrative law and the Court’s relationship with the so-called “administrative state.” The Regulatory Review highlights ongoing debates about how far federal agencies’ power should go, illustrating that even among justices there are deep divides on questions of regulatory authority, due process, and the use of non-binding guidance by government bodies.Thank you for tuning in. Don’t forget to subscribe for continued updates. This has been a quiet please production, for more check out quiet please dot ai.For more http://www.quietplease.aiGet the best deals https://amzn.to/3ODvOtaThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

10 Elo 2min

The Supreme Court has made major headlines in recent days with a decision that significantly limits the authority of lower federal courts to issue what are known as universal injunctions. This was in response to challenges around President Trump’s executive order that sought to restrict birthright citizenship for certain children born in the United States. Instead of weighing in on the constitutionality of the citizenship order itself, the Court, in a 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, focused on clarifying that federal courts can no longer block government policies nationwide for everyone, but rather only for the parties directly involved in a lawsuit. This decision marks a clear departure from past practice, reinforcing the principle that sweeping, nationwide remedies from courts are only appropriate in rare cases. The ruling did not settle the underlying legal question around birthright citizenship, so additional challenges on the substance of that policy may still reach the Court in the future, as reported by Phillips Murrah and coverage on SCOTUSblog.At the same time, the Supreme Court has also drawn considerable public attention over its recent involvement in matters affecting transgender rights. The Court recently upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth, a decision in United States v. Skrmetti, which permitted the state to deny medical treatments such as hormone therapy and puberty blockers to minors. Advocates argue this decision undermines access to necessary healthcare and is part of a broader pattern of restrictions following the Dobbs ruling on abortion. Additionally, the Court recently agreed to review cases involving state laws that bar transgender athletes from participating in school sports based on their gender identity. The cases of Little v. Hecox from Idaho and West Virginia v. B.P.J. will determine whether these state bans run afoul of federal civil rights law, especially Title IX, and constitutional protections.Education policy and federal authority are also under the spotlight, as the Court recently allowed the Trump administration to move forward with significant downsizing of the Department of Education. Without issuing a detailed opinion for the public, the Supreme Court’s action has paved the way for major federal layoffs within the agency, raising concerns among educators and public school advocates about the future of federal support for education.Attention also remains fixed on changes in workplace discrimination law. Building on last year’s Muldrow decision, courts have started applying a lower “some harm” standard to determine whether employees have suffered adverse action in discrimination cases under Title VII and now also under the Americans with Disabilities Act. This shift broadens the situations in which employees might have a viable claim of discrimination, since less severe job actions such as changes in responsibility or required counseling can now qualify as legally adverse.In the midst of these headline decisions, the Supreme Court’s credibility and role continue to be debated, with Gallup reporting record gaps in public job approval. Commentators are discussing potential reforms, and there are renewed calls among political figures to consider expanding the Court or adding new states to the Union. As the legal landscape evolves, listeners can expect the Supreme Court’s decisions and agenda to remain at the center of national conversation.Thank you for tuning in and don’t forget to subscribe. This has been a Quiet Please production, for more check out quiet please dot ai.For more http://www.quietplease.aiGet the best deals https://amzn.to/3ODvOtaThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

8 Elo 3min

The United States Supreme Court has been making significant headlines this week with developments that could reshape the country’s legal and political landscape. One of the most consequential moves came in the Trump v. CASA, Inc. decision, issued at the end of June, which narrowed the circumstances under which federal district courts can issue nationwide injunctions. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, insisted that injunctions should generally address only the specific plaintiffs' harms and not serve as sweeping blocks against federal policies. For agencies like the EPA, this means that longstanding legal strategies used to halt broad federal actions are now in flux, and the immediate fallout has permitted the EPA to move forward with controversial reorganization plans, including layoffs of environmental justice staff. The aftermath of this ruling has triggered new lawsuits aimed at preserving environmental and climate justice initiatives, and legal scholars are watching closely to see if the Court will also curb another powerful legal remedy known as Administrative Procedure Act vacatur in future cases.Turning to electoral law, the Supreme Court ordered new arguments in the high-stakes Louisiana v. Callais case, signaling just how central the issue of racial gerrymandering remains ahead of the 2026 midterms. The core question is whether Louisiana’s creation of a second majority-Black congressional district after the 2020 census runs afoul of the Constitution by relying too heavily on race. This decision will not only impact the makeup of Louisiana’s delegation but could set a precedent with national repercussions, as states across the country face pressure to redraw maps in ways that benefit one party or another.Debate around voting rights more broadly has taken on added urgency, with commentators such as those at Mother Jones warning that the Supreme Court’s approach could accelerate the erosion of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The decision to reconsider a previously paused case has alarmed voting rights advocates, who see it as a signal that the Justices may further curtail federal oversight of racial discrimination in voting. Historical decisions from 2019 already limited federal courts from intervening in partisan gerrymandering cases, and current maneuvering by both parties at the state level hints at increased litigation over redistricting as next year’s midterms approach.News has also emerged about a major dispute over federal research funding. Higher education associations—including the American Council on Education—are urging the Court to protect a district court's order that required the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to reinstate grants canceled because they were linked to diversity, equity, and inclusion. The Biden Administration appealed the lower court’s ruling and asked the Supreme Court to allow NIH to keep those grants canceled while the case plays out. University groups are warning that ongoing disruption to biomedical research will have serious consequences for disease research and scientific progress, while the administration frames the dispute as a question of proper legal jurisdiction.On the state level, the Texas Supreme Court is now at the center of a showdown over legislative walkouts, as the state’s Attorney General moves to enforce attendance and potentially vacate the seats of Democratic lawmakers who have left the state to prevent a legislative quorum. This state-level power struggle reflects the high-stakes battles playing out nationally over voting rights, redistricting, and partisan control.Meanwhile, Justice Samuel Alito is making headlines with news of a forthcoming book, while the Court’s docket remains active with filings and petitions in a variety of high-profile cases, including one over tariffs and presidential power. Historians and legal scholars continue to weigh in on the broader themes at play, particularly how recent Supreme Court moves are shaping democracy, the balance of power, and the scope of federal governance.Thank you for tuning in, and don’t forget to subscribe. This has been a quiet please production, for more check out quiet please dot ai.For more http://www.quietplease.aiGet the best deals https://amzn.to/3ODvOtaThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

6 Elo 4min

The US Supreme Court has made headlines recently with several major decisions and developments. One of the most closely watched rulings was in United States v. Skrmetti, where the Court’s conservative majority upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors. This marked the first time the Court directly addressed how equal protection principles apply to transgender individuals. The decision saw strong concurrences from Justices Thomas, Alito, and Barrett, and a powerful dissent from Justice Sotomayor. Legal observers note this ruling is a significant setback for trans rights and sex discrimination law, but it is not considered the final say, as the Court has agreed to hear additional cases pertaining to transgender athletes in upcoming sessions. According to The Regulatory Review, this case signals ongoing battles over the future of LGBTQ+ protections at the federal level.Another high-profile decision was handed down in the realm of employment law with Ames v. Ohio. The ruling clarified that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act must be applied equally, regardless of whether a discrimination claim is brought by a majority group or a minority group employee. Previously, some federal circuit courts had imposed a higher burden of proof on majority-group plaintiffs, but the Court stated that Title VII’s protections extend uniformly to all individuals. This outcome means agencies and employers across the country now have to ensure their policies and practices treat all discrimination claims with the same evidentiary standards, as reported by Police1.Financial law also saw a significant shift as the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited verdict on the treatment of undisclosed commissions in motor finance transactions. The Court resolved three combined cases—Johnson v. FirstRand Bank, Wrench v. FirstRand Bank, and Hopcraft v. Close Brothers—and ruled in favor of lenders. The judgment determined that car dealers do not owe fiduciary duties to customers when arranging vehicle financing, which means the payment of commissions to car dealers from lenders without full disclosure does not automatically amount to a bribe or unfair dealing under most circumstances. However, the Court did find in one specific scenario that the relationship between a lender and customer could be considered unfair under consumer credit laws. Industry analysis from Shoosmiths and Dentons highlights that while this is a win for the auto finance sector, some customers may still be eligible for compensation if they've been treated unfairly, with the Financial Conduct Authority planning to consult on a possible redress scheme in the coming months.In terms of procedure, there’s been broader commentary on how the Supreme Court has relied heavily on its so-called “shadow docket,” which allows for decisions on emergency requests without full briefing or oral arguments. This term, the Court issued more than one hundred such emergency docket rulings, often siding with the Trump administration on controversial matters. These included allowing a military ban on transgender individuals, permitting the withholding of funding from states whose education programs include diversity, equity, and inclusion measures, and granting federal agencies easier access to Social Security records. MR Online and other judicial analysts argue that this reliance on expedited, often unsigned decisions has increased perceptions that the Court is less independent and more politically motivated, especially in matters with high political stakes. Notably, former President Trump has still criticized the Court, including his own appointees, for not being sufficiently supportive of his policies.Thank you for tuning in, and remember to subscribe. This has been a quiet please production, for more check out quiet please dot ai.For more http://www.quietplease.aiGet the best deals https://amzn.to/3ODvOtaThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

4 Elo 4min

Over the past several days, the US Supreme Court has remained at the center of national attention with its recent decisions and the political debates swirling around them. According to the Black Lens News, the Court drew headlines by allowing the Trump administration to proceed with its plan to significantly restructure the Department of Education, a move that could have wide-reaching implications for federal oversight of educational equity programs. This decision has added new urgency to ongoing legal battles over civil rights protections for students.In connection to those education disputes, the Legal Defense Fund announced a significant victory in federal court compelling the US Department of Education to reinstate funding for critical federal equity assistance centers, impacting resources designed to fight discrimination in schools. The Legal Defense Fund emphasized that this ruling reinforces the Department’s obligations to protect students’ civil rights and maintain support for inclusive educational environments.Housing policy has also been affected by recent Supreme Court actions. As covered by Jefferson Public Radio, a recent Supreme Court ruling stemming from a land use fee dispute in California is now being leveraged to challenge the constitutionality of affordable housing mandates in several cities. Legal teams are arguing that requirements for developers to set aside affordable units or pay substantial fees must be directly connected to the actual impact a development will have on the community, intensifying debates over how cities address housing affordability while respecting property rights.On the political front, Justice Brett Kavanaugh publicly defended the Supreme Court’s record on handling emergency appeals from the Trump administration. Speaking to the press, Kavanaugh argued that the Court has acted fairly and impartially amidst heightened scrutiny and partisan criticism, as reported by AOL News.Finally, as noted by National Review, the Court has moved closer to addressing the contentious issue of racial gerrymandering, with justices signaling skepticism about the future of certain Voting Rights Act precedents regarding the role of race in legislative redistricting. This sets the stage for major decisions on voting rights and election law in the near future.Thanks for tuning in, and don’t forget to subscribe. This has been a Quiet Please production, for more check out quietplease.ai.For more http://www.quietplease.aiGet the best deals https://amzn.to/3ODvOtaThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

3 Elo 2min

Listeners, here’s the latest from the U.S. Supreme Court. This week, the justices made headlines with an important ruling on reverse discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The Court clarified that plaintiffs from majority groups—often white or male employees—do not have to meet a higher burden of proof compared to minority plaintiffs when bringing employment discrimination suits. This decision reinforces that all groups are subject to the same legal standards in discrimination cases, as reported by Mondaq.Environmental policy also saw a major shift, with the Supreme Court issuing a decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado. According to Communications Daily, the ruling narrowed the federal government’s obligation to conduct environmental reviews for infrastructure projects, which will likely have impacts on both industry regulations and environmental oversight across the country.In addition, labor relations and union dues remain in the news. The Mackinac Center reports that some lower courts have been accused of ignoring Supreme Court precedent from the landmark Janus decision, which held that mandatory union payments by public employees violate the First Amendment. This ongoing tension between lower courts and Supreme Court directives continues to spark debate, especially in states with strong public sector unions.The Court’s emergency docket procedures faced public defense this week as well. Justice Kavanaugh responded to growing criticism of the Supreme Court’s increasingly frequent use of brief, unsigned orders for urgent cases. According to CNN, Kavanaugh argued that these rapid decisions are necessary for justice in time-sensitive matters, although calls for greater transparency and clarity persist.Several high-profile cases remain on the Court’s schedule, including challenges related to voting rights in Louisiana, and ongoing litigation over transgender rights in schools, as tracked by the ACLU. These cases could result in significant decisions affecting electoral laws and LGBTQ rights nationwide in the coming months.Thank you for tuning in and don’t forget to subscribe. This has been a Quiet Please production, for more check out quiet please dot ai.For more http://www.quietplease.aiGet the best deals https://amzn.to/3ODvOtaThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

1 Elo 2min