Supreme Court Tracker - SCOTUS News

The US Supreme Court wrapped up its December oral argument session this week, with the justices hearing key cases including FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund on Wednesday, December 10. In that dispute over whether investors can sue investment companies under the Investment Company Act of 1940, the transcript reveals a lively bench discussion, where counsel debated implied private rights of action, with justices like Thomas, Sotomayor, Barrett, Jackson, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh probing the text's focus on court remedies versus individual enforcement, drawing parallels to precedents like Sandoval, Gonzaga, and TAMA. SCOTUSblog's analysis notes the justices appeared surprisingly receptive to allowing limited private suits to invalidate noncompliant contracts, despite their recent skepticism toward implied rights.Earlier in the week, on Monday, December 8, the court tackled Trump v. Slaughter, examining limits on presidential removal power over Federal Trade Commission commissioners. Arguments centered on whether Congress can insulate FTC members from at-will firing, with Solicitor General D. John Sauer urging the court to narrow or overturn the 1935 Humphrey's Executor precedent, arguing it hampers executive authority. Justices signaled strong support for broader presidential power, with Chief Justice Roberts calling the precedent a "dried husk," potentially reshaping independent agencies like the NLRB or others, though counsel suggested a narrow ruling to avoid widespread disruption. A decision there is expected by summer.Today, Friday, December 12, the justices convene for their final private conference of 2025 to vote on petitions for review, with possible grant announcements this afternoon and an order list slated for Monday. The court also has a pending interim decision on President Trump's bid to deploy the National Guard to Illinois.In related developments, a federal judge on Friday ordered immigration officials not to re-detain Kilmar Abrego Garcia, hours after his release, citing a 2001 Supreme Court ruling against indefinite detention without deportation plans; the Department of Homeland Security decried it as judicial activism and plans to appeal. Separately, on Thursday, arguments wrapped in Hamm v. Smith, weighing IQ tests and school records in a death penalty intellectual disability claim, building on the 2002 Atkins decision.The court's next arguments resume January 12, marking a brief holiday pause amid these high-stakes separations-of-powers clashes.Thanks for tuning in, listeners—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

The Supreme Court has been busy with significant developments over the last few days. On Tuesday, just yesterday, the Court heard oral arguments in a critical campaign finance case involving the Federal Election Commission and issues around spending limits coordinated with candidates. This case challenges longstanding Watergate-era restrictions and could reshape the rules on how political parties and candidates can coordinate spending, potentially opening the door to higher expenditures in federal races. The justices debated the balance between preventing circumvention of contribution limits and allowing political expenditures, with some justices probing the complexity of enforcement and the significance of scandals from past decades.Another important matter before the Court involves the limits on powers of federal agencies. The Court is considering a case concerning the firing of a commissioner—this has broad implications for presidential authority over executive branch officials. If the Court upholds the firing, it would further solidify presidential control over independent agencies, continuing a recent trend of expanding executive removal powers. This is part of a broader ongoing look at the administrative state and how much independence regulatory agencies can maintain.The Court also continues to prepare for a major ruling on birthright citizenship, a hotly contested constitutional question involving the interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. This case, widely followed, will likely have a profound impact on immigration and citizenship policy, with a decision expected next summer.Beyond these, the Court is weighing the role of IQ scores in decisions involving the execution of intellectually disabled defendants, signaling ongoing engagement with the constitutional protections around the death penalty. Meanwhile, some petitions were urged to be left alone, such as a recent call to refrain from disturbing a military contract protest case, suggesting the Court remains selective in vetting cases for full review.Altogether, the Court's docket reveals a continued focus on core constitutional questions tied to elections, executive power, immigration, and criminal justice. The decisions forthcoming in these areas will likely shape American governance and law for years to come.Thank you for tuning in. Please subscribe to stay updated on the latest Supreme Court news. 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

The Supreme Court has been quite active recently with several significant cases and developments commanding attention.On Tuesday, the justices heard oral arguments in First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. Platkin, a case centered on whether faith-based pregnancy centers can challenge New Jersey's demand for donor information in federal court. Based on the oral arguments, a majority of the justices appeared sympathetic to First Choice's position that they should be able to litigate their First Amendment claims in federal court rather than being forced into state court. The case hinges on whether receiving a state subpoena demanding donor names constitutes an injury sufficient to bring a lawsuit, even before the state actually enforces it. Justice Elena Kagan raised concerns during arguments about the reassurance value of a subpoena that merely requires court approval, suggesting the justices may be inclined to protect organizations from having their associational rights chilled by state investigatory demands.The Court also has several other significant matters on its plate. In the coming days, justices could issue decisions in interim docket cases regarding President Trump's effort to deploy the National Guard to Illinois and Texas's new congressional map. Additionally, today the Court heard arguments in Olivier v. City of Brandon, Mississippi, which addresses whether individuals can challenge a law as unconstitutional and seek to protect themselves from its future enforcement even after being previously punished for violating that law.On the copyright front, the justices appeared skeptical during Monday's arguments in Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment of upholding a billion-dollar judgment against Cox for its customers' copyright infringement. The case addresses a central feature of internet behavior—the widespread consumption of copyrighted content without permission—and the justices seem unlikely to accept the lower courts' massive damages award.The Supreme Court also addressed immigration policy on Monday in Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, considering whether federal appeals courts should make their own determinations about whether asylum seekers experienced persecution or defer to the Board of Immigration Appeals.Separately, Wednesday saw the Court defer action on the Trump administration's request to remove Shira Perlmutter, the head of the U.S. Copyright Office. In an unsigned order, the justices indicated they would wait to rule on similar removal requests affecting a Federal Trade Commission member and a Federal Reserve Board member before deciding on Perlmutter's case.Looking ahead, the Court is also considering a case brought by Steve Bannon, who is appealing his conviction for contempt of Congress related to his refusal to comply with a House subpoena investigating January 6th. Bannon's petition seeks to have his conviction removed and asks the Court to clarify what it means to "willfully" ignore a subpoena in this context.Additionally, significant interest continues surrounding potential Supreme Court review of New York's rent-stabilization policies, with Justice Clarence Thomas having previously indicated this as an important constitutional question.Thank you for tuning in. Be sure to subscribe for more updates on Supreme Court developments. 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

The Supreme Court is entering a significant week with several major cases on the docket. Tomorrow, December 2nd, the justices will hear oral arguments in First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. Platkin, a landmark First Amendment case with broad implications for nonprofit organizations across the country. This case centers on whether pro-life pregnancy centers must comply with a government subpoena seeking donor information, or whether such demands violate constitutional protections around free association, free speech, and donor privacy. The justices are specifically examining whether nonprofits can challenge such subpoenas before the government actually tries to enforce them in court. The case has attracted significant attention from those concerned about government overreach into nonprofit operations and donor confidentiality.Today, the Supreme Court also heard oral arguments in a major copyright case involving internet service providers. The justices are considering whether companies like Cox Communications can be held liable for their customers' copyright infringement activities. The music industry coalition argues that Cox deliberately chose profits over legal compliance, and a jury previously awarded over a billion dollars in damages. Cox contends it should not be responsible for user actions, pointing to its terms of service that prohibit illegal activity and arguing it gains no financial benefit when customers infringe copyrights.Additionally, the Court is preparing to hear cases involving presidential power in the coming weeks, including oral arguments over whether President Trump can freely fire members of independent agencies like the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Trade Commission. This represents a significant constitutional question about the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.The Supreme Court is also set to rule on whether Trump can use a 1970s national security law to impose tariffs broadly across countries and industries. Several Trump-appointed justices appeared skeptical during oral arguments about granting the executive such sweeping unilateral power in this area.Thank you for tuning in. Please be sure to subscribe. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out quietplease 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

The Supreme Court has made several significant moves recently that warrant attention. Most notably, the justices temporarily blocked full SNAP food benefits during the ongoing government shutdown, even as some states had already begun distributing the complete payments to recipients. The Trump administration appealed a lower court order to fully restart the country's largest anti-hunger program, and the high court's decision gave a lower court time to consider a more lasting pause on the benefits.This created confusion across multiple states including California, Oregon, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut, where residents had already received full payments on their EBT cards before the Supreme Court's intervention. The Court's action means states must now revert to partial payments that the Trump administration had instructed them to distribute. The First Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the administration's request for an initial stay but said it would consider the request and intends to issue a decision as quickly as possible.In another major development, the Supreme Court declined to hear a lawsuit brought by two Colorado families regarding parental rights and school gender policies. The case involved parents who claimed their rights were violated when their children attended Gender and Sexualities Alliance meetings at school without their knowledge. Lower courts had dismissed the case, and the Tenth Circuit upheld those rulings. While the Court declined to intervene, Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch issued a notable statement saying the allegations raise issues of growing national concern about schools withholding information from parents regarding students' gender transitions. This decision leaves the lower-court rulings intact but signals that parental rights and school gender policies could soon draw closer scrutiny from the nation's highest court.Additionally, the Court is gearing up for major cases on church-state separation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit will hear oral arguments on January 20, 2026, in two consolidated cases challenging Texas and Louisiana laws that require public school classrooms to display the Ten Commandments. A federal judge in Texas issued a preliminary injunction in August, preventing the law from going into full effect, writing that it likely violates both the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment. Louisiana's nearly identical statute met the same fate two months earlier when a three-judge Fifth Circuit panel called the measure plainly unconstitutional. The outcome of the Fifth Circuit's full review could potentially invite Supreme Court review and may redefine how the First Amendment's establishment clause is applied in American education.Thank you for tuning in to this Supreme Court update. Be sure to subscribe for more coverage of major decisions and developments from the nation's highest court. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out quietplease 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

The Supreme Court has made a significant decision regarding food assistance programs, temporarily blocking full SNAP benefits even as some states had already begun distributing them to residents. Late Friday, the high court granted the Trump administration's request to pause a lower court order that had mandated fully restarting the country's largest anti-hunger program.This situation created considerable confusion because the government stated it was sending money to states on Friday to fully fund SNAP at the same time it appealed the order. Some residents in California, Oregon, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and other states had already woken up Friday morning to find full benefits on their EBT cards before the Supreme Court's decision came down.A federal district judge had issued the order Thursday afternoon directing full SNAP payments, but the Supreme Court's temporary block means states must now revert to partial payments that the Trump administration had instructed them to distribute earlier. The administration argued it lacked sufficient emergency funds to cover full payments due to the ongoing federal shutdown and contended that Congress should provide additional SNAP funding. They also claimed that shifting money from other programs, as the judge had directed, would harm other child nutrition programs.The judge who issued the initial order had been critical of the administration's approach, expressing concern about the needless suffering caused to millions relying on that aid and suggesting the delayed partial payments may have been made for political reasons. Meanwhile, anti-hunger advocacy groups have criticized the administration, noting it had both the power and authority to ensure SNAP benefits continued uninterrupted but chose not to act until forced by court order.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit rejected the administration's request for an administrative stay but said it would consider the request and intends to issue a decision as quickly as possible, meaning further developments in this case could come soon.Thank you for tuning in and please remember to subscribe. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out quietplease.aiFor 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

The US Supreme Court has been in the spotlight with several major developments over the past few days. The Court is currently considering a case that could redefine the president's power to fire heads of independent agencies, revisiting the landmark Humphrey's Executor decision from 1935. This case stems from President Trump's dismissal of several agency officials, including FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, and the Court has already granted an emergency stay preventing her reinstatement while the matter is litigated. The justices have signaled they may reconsider whether Congress can limit the president's ability to remove agency heads, a move that could reshape the structure and independence of agencies like the Federal Reserve, the FTC, and the NLRB. The Court has also blocked the reinstatement of other officials from agencies such as the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Merit Systems Protection Board, while taking a different approach with Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook, who remains in office as arguments on her case are scheduled for January.In another high-profile matter, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on whether the president can use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs. This case could have significant implications for businesses and importers, as a ruling in favor of the administration could mean that recent tariffs are lawful, while a decision against the government could force the administration to issue refunds to importers. The justices have not yet issued an opinion in this case.The Court is also reviewing a challenge to the US Postal Service's exemption from lawsuits over lost or mishandled mail, brought by a Texas landlord. This case could open the door for more individuals to sue the Postal Service for damages related to mail issues.Outside of specific cases, the Court has been active in its emergency docket, with several recent rulings reflecting the justices' willingness to intervene in politically charged matters. These actions have sparked debate about the Court's role in shaping the separation of powers and its influence on regulatory and administrative law.Thank you for tuning in. Remember to subscribe for more 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

Listeners, over the past few days the U.S. Supreme Court has been at the center of significant developments, particularly in relation to the upcoming 2026 elections. On Friday, Texas formally asked the Supreme Court to clear the way for the implementation of its newly redrawn congressional map, which is designed to bolster Republican chances in the next election cycle. Justice Samuel Alito responded to Texas’ emergency request by issuing an administrative stay, temporarily allowing the map while challengers were ordered to submit responses within a few days, as reported by SCOTUSblog and The Columbian. This move followed a high-profile lower court ruling that blocked the map, citing racial bias in favor of Republican districts. Now, the Supreme Court must decide whether Texas can use the map or if the lower court’s ruling will stand, making this a contentious issue with major implications for election law and the balance of political power in Congress.Additionally, the Supreme Court is expected to soon weigh in on Trump administration petitions related to birthright citizenship, further indicating that immigration policy may see significant legal shifts in the coming weeks. There are also signs that several consequential cases—including challenges to absentee and mail-in ballot deadlines—are on the horizon, potentially affecting how votes are counted and processed in states like Nevada and elsewhere.In other news, the court is preparing for a major decision on presidential tariff powers. The Trump administration is publicly urging the Supreme Court for a quick resolution in a case that could impact billions in tariff revenues and reshape the legal framework around trade policy. According to Fortune and The Washington Times, the administration is even providing fallback plans in anticipation of the ruling, which is expected to clarify just how much power the president has to impose tariffs unilaterally—a question with big stakes for domestic businesses, international trade, and executive authority.It’s worth noting the broader context of judicial drama, as election law decisions in the lower courts continue to spark controversy. Just last week, a fierce dissent in a Texas redistricting case made headlines for the personal and procedural criticisms exchanged among judges, underscoring the heightened tensions surrounding election law in 2025.With oral arguments, decisions, and order releases taking place throughout the week, court observers anticipate that more blockbuster rulings could drop ahead of Thanksgiving, ranging from voting rights to presidential powers. The Supreme Court building itself will be closed over Thursday and Friday, but the legal landscape remains active, with immediate implications for both state and national governance.Thank you for tuning in, and don’t forget to subscribe for ongoing coverage and updates on the latest developments from the nation’s highest court. 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

The Supreme Court has dominated recent headlines with a pair of blockbuster decisions that have major implications for American politics and law. According to CNN coverage and analysis, the court handed down a ruling that sharply limits presidential immunity from criminal prosecution. The justices determined that while a president can claim immunity for actions taken as part of their official duties, that protection does not extend to private conduct or illegal acts performed for personal benefit. This ruling directly impacts former President Trump, as it removes his main legal defense against prosecution in cases related to January 6th and classified documents. Legal analysts note that Trump's argument that everything he did while president was immune has been firmly rejected, leading to the likelihood of multiple trials moving forward during the next election cycle. The Washington Post and CNN point out that this decision creates new precedent for all future presidents, fundamentally reshaping the scope of executive power and accountability.In another significant move, as covered by Fortune and the Associated Press, the Supreme Court struck down the president’s broad use of emergency powers to impose tariffs. Previously, Trump had utilized these powers as a cornerstone of his trade policy and campaign persona, especially regarding China and other trading partners. The court declared that such emergency powers must be used within clearer legal boundaries, curbing the ability for any president to unilaterally impose tariffs without explicit congressional authorization. This has injected uncertainty into trade policy, with White House officials scrambling to develop alternative strategies as existing tariffs may have to be reconsidered or rolled back. Observers from Politico and Bloomberg describe this as a comprehensive dismantling of a key executive tool for rapid economic action.Separately, NBC News reports that late Friday the Supreme Court temporarily allowed Texas to use a newly redrawn congressional voting map favoring Republicans while litigation over alleged racial gerrymandering continues. The court’s emergency order blocked a lower court’s injunction, enabling the map’s use for now and highlighting the justices’ continuing central role in pivotal election disputes with national consequences.Finally, the Las Vegas Review-Journal highlights a pending Supreme Court case likely to affect mail-in voting protocols in sixteen states, with potential ramifications for future elections about how and when ballots are counted. Discussions about voting rights, redistricting, and election law are expected to remain at the heart of the court’s docket as the 2026 elections approach.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

The US Supreme Court has remained at the center of national news with several headline developments and upcoming decisions dominating recent coverage. One major development reported by SCOTUSblog is that the Court has agreed to review a high-stakes case involving federal authority over border crossings, which is expected to weigh heavily on executive branch powers concerning immigration and the management of the southern border. This case was brought to the Court’s attention after the Trump administration asserted that a federal appeals court ruling had significantly constrained the ability of the executive branch to control border enforcement.In addition, according to SCOTUSblog, the Court declined to hear an appeal from New Orleans' sheriff over the city's responsibility to provide improved facilities for inmates with mental health issues, effectively leaving in place lower court rulings that demanded better conditions for these inmates. This refusal came despite vocal objections from three of the justices, highlighting divisions even in the Court’s case selection process.Oral arguments are also on the calendar for Landor v. Louisiana, a closely watched case regarding religious rights of prisoners, with Deseret News highlighting the potential for the Court to set new standards for religious accommodations in prison settings. Furthermore, as reported by Courthouse News, another case returning to the Court is a challenge to birthright citizenship policies, stemming from ongoing litigation that could potentially impact the definition of who is considered an American citizen under the Constitution.On the procedural front, Eye on Enforcement reports that recent significant changes to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines took effect at the start of November, reflecting a more streamlined sentencing process in federal courts. While these amendments were not enacted by the Supreme Court directly, they relate to the Court’s influential decision in United States v. Booker, which made the guidelines advisory rather than mandatory and continue to shape the federal sentencing landscape.Other noteworthy updates include the Court’s continued consideration of long-term precedent such as the Chevron doctrine, which has shaped the authority federal agencies have in interpreting statutes — with cases in lower courts on hold until the Supreme Court resolves this critical administrative law question, as indicated in a recent Connecticut oral argument.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

The US Supreme Court continues to receive major attention as it weighs impactful cases that shape national policy and legal precedent. One of the most closely watched events this week involves the arguments over President Trump’s tariff policies; several states and businesses sued over his use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose sweeping duties, and the Supreme Court recently heard arguments on whether this authority exceeded legal boundaries. Grant Thornton notes that consumer goods are now beginning to see some relief as the administration carves out exemptions from certain tariffs, but the issue remains in flux and the high court's decision is eagerly awaited.SCOTUSblog emphasizes that the broader theme dominating this term relates to executive power, with the Court taking up cases about how much leeway the president has to remove officials from independent federal agencies, along with disputes over immigration laws, birthright citizenship, and the president’s deployment of the National Guard. Several cases are also percolating on the so-called emergency or “shadow docket,” particularly those involving executive orders affecting civil liberties and immigration enforcement.According to The Fulcrum, the Supreme Court has already issued significant rulings directly involving Trump administration policies, including a landmark decision expanding presidential immunity for “official acts,” which critics say risks shielding presidents from accountability for abuses of power. Another notable development includes a decision limiting lower courts’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions against federal actions, thereby narrowing judicial checks on executive authority. In the past week, the Court declined to block a lower court order requiring continued funding of food stamps during a government shutdown, upholding protections for vulnerable populations. Meanwhile, legal analysts report that 20 to 30 of the record 530 lawsuits against the administration are likely to reach the Supreme Court this term, with tariff challenges and cases about immigration and executive removal powers already on the Court’s schedule.Dykema’s recent appellate review highlights that the Justices are also hearing high-profile cases on civil rights and individual liberties. Oral arguments were held on several marquee issues: the constitutionality of Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors—a case that pits professional speech rights against state regulatory interests—the right of criminal defendants to confer privately with counsel during trial recesses, and the legality of state laws restricting transgender athletes’ participation in women’s sports, which could have sweeping implications for equal protection and Title IX enforcement.Corporate Compliance Insights discusses how last year’s Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright, which ended judicial deference to agency interpretations, has led to executive orders to hastily repeal federal regulations. This is creating regulatory uncertainty and a scramble among regulatory professionals and businesses, especially with the Trump Administration’s deregulatory push.Looking ahead, legal experts anticipate that several remaining cases on the Court’s docket—including immigration issues, the limits of presidential authority, and major commercial disputes—could result in dramatic rulings in the months ahead. As the justices prepare to issue more decisions, the nation remains focused on how these outcomes will affect policy, governance, and constitutional law.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

Listeners, over the last three days, several notable developments have unfolded at the US Supreme Court. The justices recently declined to revisit their landmark 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, leaving the federal right to same-sex marriage intact despite advocacy groups’ renewed efforts to overturn it. This dismissal was made swiftly, signaling the court’s unwillingness to reconsider the precedent even with its current conservative makeup, which had previously upended Roe v. Wade according to coverage by The Signal News and AP News.On the trade front, there's significant anticipation regarding President Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments and is expected to rule soon, a verdict that could sharply redefine presidential authority over economic and trade measures. The Wall Street Journal and AIvest have highlighted that Trump’s administration has already begun modifying reciprocal food tariffs due to both price impacts and heightened legal uncertainty while expanding other tariffs under established laws.Election law also remains in the spotlight as the Supreme Court agreed to take up Watson v. Republican National Committee, a case which challenges a Mississippi law permitting mail-in ballots to be counted several days after Election Day. The court’s decision on this matter, as reported by the Honest Elections Project and The Center Square, could set a new national precedent for mail-in voting deadlines, impacting rules ahead of the 2026 midterms. Both Republican and Democratic leaders are weighing in, underscoring the significance for voter access and states' rights.On the docket for gun rights, the Supreme Court has been reviewing whether states can bar individuals aged 18 to 20 from owning or purchasing firearms, a subject poised to reshape the landscape for young adult gun ownership. TheTruthAboutGuns notes that the justices are also considering petitions about lifetime gun bans for nonviolent felons, adding another layer to this term’s Second Amendment debates.Meanwhile, the justices held their usual private conference at the end of last week, and Monday’s order list is expected to reveal additional cases for this term. SCOTUSblog mentioned that arguments heard last week delved into the standards for compassionate release of federal inmates.Thank you for tuning in. Don’t forget to subscribe. This has been a Quiet Please production, for more check out quietplease 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

Listeners, here’s the latest news and major developments from the U.S. Supreme Court. On Thursday, November 6, the Supreme Court granted the Trump administration’s request to temporarily pause a lower court ruling that allowed transgender and nonbinary Americans to self-select their gender on passport applications. This move, made through the court’s emergency docket and issued unsigned, saw a dissent from Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, signaling ongoing divisions within the Court on transgender rights. The decision directly affects those seeking to have their passport gender marker reflect their gender identity and reflects the current conservative tilt on the emergency docket, according to Tangle News.Another notable decision from Tuesday: the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to continue limiting Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for November by extending a temporary stay on increased payments. This means lower SNAP benefits remain in effect as litigation over program requirements continues, as reported by AOL News.In other news on the Court’s emergency docket, the Supreme Court denied a petition challenging the FCC’s implementation of the Low Power Protection Act, clearing the way for the law to remain as Congress intended, which impacts broadcasters and their regulatory requirements, as covered by Broadcast Law Blog.While the Supreme Court has not released any monumental merits decisions in the past few days, these actions through its emergency docket show the Court’s outsize role in shaping urgent policy questions on civil rights and federal benefit programs even outside of its regular hearing schedule. Listeners can expect further developments as major cases on immigration, reproductive rights, and federal regulatory power are still on the agenda for this term.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

Listeners, here’s what’s been making headlines at the US Supreme Court since Wednesday. According to SCOTUSblog, one of the most closely watched developments is the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw its request for the Court to pause a lower court ruling regarding SNAP payments. This move came just after the government shutdown was resolved, with SNAP now funded through the end of the fiscal year, which made the legal challenge moot.The Court just heard oral arguments in two cases regarding compassionate release for federal prisoners. The key issue being debated is how much authority Congress has delegated to the US Sentencing Commission to shape the rules for when judges can reduce sentences for reasons like medical issues or changed circumstances. According to transcripts, justices pressed both sides about whether expanding these compassionate releases would counter Congress’s original intent on sentencing.The Court is also preparing for upcoming arguments in high-profile cases in January, including those involving transgender athletes, gun rights, and the authority of the president to remove members from the Federal Reserve Board. According to SCOTUSblog, these cases are generating a lot of discussion about the future direction of constitutional law in areas affecting civil rights and the limits of presidential power.Separately, there’s been public debate, as reported by Mezha, about the Court’s role in shaping education and race policy, with the justices reflecting on the legacy of Brown v. Board of Education in current disputes over race and access to schools.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

Listeners, here’s what’s making headlines at the US Supreme Court this week. The Court is currently considering a case that could significantly shift the balance of power between the executive branch and Congress when it comes to US trade policy and tariffs. According to a recent analysis by FleishmanHillard, the central questions are whether the president overstepped congressional authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and whether a president can continue to adjust tariffs indefinitely by relying on a standing national emergency without renewed congressional approval. During oral arguments, justices from both ends of the ideological spectrum expressed concern about the broad and unchecked authority claimed by the White House, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioning if an initial finding should provide indefinite executive power, and Justice Neil Gorsuch voicing worries about unconstrained trade power affecting American businesses. Politico also reports that as the justices weigh Trump-era tariffs, foreign governments are closely watching, hoping the ruling could affect leverage in ongoing trade negotiations.In another development, SCOTUSblog reports that the Court agreed this week to hear a major election law case that will decide whether federal law requires that ballots must not only be cast by voters but received by officials by Election Day. The outcome could have sweeping consequences for how close elections are managed across the country.The Court also declined to revisit the landmark 2015 ruling on same-sex marriage, rejecting an appeal from Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. According to The Bend Bulletin, this refusal to take up the case reaffirms equal treatment under the law and signals that the justices are not interested in reconsidering or reversing same-sex marriage rights at this time.On Monday, the Court heard oral arguments on whether individual state prison officials can be held personally liable for damages if they violate inmates’ religious rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, particularly in situations involving federally funded corrections programs. The justices probed the extent of potential liability for government officials and wrestled with questions about consent, notice, and the line between state and federal responsibility.The Court also addressed arguments about contractor immunity, focusing on whether federal government contractors are entitled to immediate appeals when immunity from lawsuit is denied, and how that interacts with doctrines of sovereign immunity and government accountability.Listeners, those are the highlights from the Supreme Court this week. 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

Listeners, the Supreme Court has made headlines in several major areas over the past few days, reflecting ongoing legal battles and pivotal constitutional questions. At the forefront, the Court is hearing one of the most consequential tests of presidential authority in decades, reviewing the legality of former President Donald Trump's global tariffs imposed under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The justices engaged in a nearly three-hour hearing, questioning whether Trump overstepped constitutional boundaries by using emergency powers to impose tariffs—effectively taxes—without Congressional approval. According to CNN News18 and CBC News, even conservative justices and some of Trump's own appointees expressed skepticism, highlighting concerns about setting dangerous precedents around executive power and bypassing Congress on matters of taxation. Analysts suggest there’s a real possibility the Court could strike down the tariffs.Meanwhile, a dramatic legal saga unfolds regarding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. Amid the government shutdown, lower courts had ordered the Trump administration to fully fund SNAP benefits for November, responding to lawsuits from Democratic-led states and nonprofits. After these payments were initiated in several states, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a late-night administrative stay, temporarily blocking the full disbursement while an appeals process plays out. This led the Department of Agriculture over the weekend to order states to reverse any steps taken to issue full SNAP payments, warning that any full payments would be considered unauthorized and states could face penalties for noncompliance. Axios and ABC News report widespread confusion and disruptions among states, with warnings of catastrophic operational impacts if federal reimbursements do not follow.The Court is also poised to make a landmark ruling in a case that could reshape congressional redistricting nationwide. In a challenge to Louisiana’s 2024 congressional map, justices will soon decide whether the intentional use of race to draw voting districts violates the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause or the Voting Rights Act. The implications reach far beyond Louisiana, with California Governor Gavin Newsom’s mid-decade redistricting—Proposition 50—facing similar scrutiny. Election law experts say a Supreme Court decision to require race-neutral maps could fundamentally alter how states draw districts for years to come.Elsewhere on the docket, SCOTUSblog previews oral arguments on Monday in Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety. Justices will weigh whether a Louisiana man whose religious rights were allegedly violated when prison officials forcibly shaved his dreadlocks can seek monetary damages from those officials. Also scheduled is The GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal, addressing whether government contractors can immediately appeal district court orders refusing them immunity, or must wait until the end of trial proceedings.Beyond direct Supreme Court actions, key developments linked to Trump’s administration are surfacing. According to POLITICO and the New York Times, Trump has issued a series of pardons for allies who supported his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Most are symbolic, as those individuals weren't federally charged. Trump has also pardoned a former police officer convicted of acting as an unregistered Chinese agent, and Ghislaine Maxwell is preparing an application for sentence commutation after the Supreme Court previously rejected her appeal.Thank you for tuning in and be sure to subscribe for the latest 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

The US Supreme Court has taken center stage in the national news cycle with a major decision on food assistance and new cases set for argument. Just hours after lower courts ordered full Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, payments to go out for November despite the ongoing government shutdown, the Supreme Court intervened late Friday. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued an emergency order that temporarily pauses the requirement for the Trump administration to distribute full food benefits, instead allowing the government to withhold part of those payments as legal disputes continue. This decision has left millions of Americans relying on nutrition assistance in uncertainty, and states across the country are responding with a patchwork of solutions. According to Axios, several states like Michigan had already started issuing full benefits before the court’s intervention, while others are now left waiting to see what comes next for their most vulnerable residents. Governors and state health officials have voiced frustration at the last-minute nature of the Supreme Court’s stay, citing the confusion and hardship for families who are unclear about how much support they will receive this month. With the legal battle ongoing, some states such as Delaware have even stepped in to use their own funds for emergency relief payments, while in New York, Governor Kathy Hochul sharply criticized what she described as a series of harmful decisions from the administration.Elsewhere on the Supreme Court’s docket, oral arguments are set this week for a unique religious freedom case that has attracted attention across ideological lines. According to Salon, both church-state separation advocates and religious liberty proponents are closely watching as the Court prepares to consider the boundaries of religious accommodations in the public sphere. This highlights the Court’s ongoing role in shaping major policy debates beyond the immediate crisis over government funding and benefits.There are no reports of decisions on other blockbuster cases or hot-button issues such as abortion or affirmative action in these past few days, and the Justices have not announced any new retirements or significant personnel news.Senate records show ongoing consideration of federal judicial nominations, but at the Supreme Court level, the immediate focus remains squarely on the SNAP payments and the upcoming high-profile cases on the calendar.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

Listeners, here’s the latest from the US Supreme Court over the past few days. The Court is in the midst of its November sitting and just held oral arguments in what’s shaping up to be a landmark case about presidential tariffs. This dispute, known as the “Tariff Cases,” asks whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act gives the president authority to impose sweeping tariffs, and whether such delegation of power from Congress is constitutional. Justice Roberts and Barrett asked tough questions of both sides, signaling uncertainty, while Justice Gorsuch raised concerns about separation of powers. Justice Kavanaugh appeared more supportive of the administration’s position, while Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson expressed skepticism. Since lower courts previously ruled these tariffs invalid, there’s high anticipation as a decision—possibly expedited—could have major repercussions for global trade and may even trigger the refund of as much as 90 billion dollars already collected, according to ABC News.Meanwhile, the justices handed the Trump administration a significant win by halting, at least temporarily, lower court orders that would have required the State Department to issue passports to transgender and nonbinary individuals reflecting their sex designation of choice. In an unsigned opinion, the majority said listing an individual's sex at birth is a historical fact and not an equal protection violation.As November’s term continues, there are several high-profile petitions under the Court’s consideration. One of the most prominent is from Kim Davis, the former Kentucky clerk jailed in 2015 for refusing, on religious grounds, to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Her petition directly asks the Court to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the decision that established marriage rights for same-sex couples. Advocacy groups and state legislatures in at least nine states have issued calls to revisit the precedent, while new rules in Texas now allow judges to refuse to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies if contrary to their religious beliefs.Other major questions before the justices include whether federal law bars gun purchases for adults under 21, and whether people fired over religious objections to COVID-19 vaccines may sue for damages even though relevant mandates have been repealed. Immigration policy is also on the docket, as the Court considers when someone seeking asylum officially “arrives” in the US and gains the right to apply.Also making headlines in oral arguments this week is Rico v. United States, focused on whether escaping probation supervision counts against the term of supervised release. The Court heard another case on the boundaries of challenging potentially void judgments under federal court procedure.Listeners, thank you for tuning in. Don’t forget to subscribe for more coverage of the Supreme Court. 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

Listeners, the United States Supreme Court has been making headlines this week as it takes on a major case involving President Donald Trump’s authority to impose sweeping emergency tariffs. Arguments began Wednesday in consolidated cases, Learning Resources, Inc v. Trump and Trump v. VOS Selections, which challenge the legality of tariffs Trump enacted using emergency powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. This statute, dating from 1977, gives the president authority to regulate the importation of goods during national emergencies, but it notably does not explicitly grant the power to levy tariffs. The Supreme Court’s decision here could have major implications for not just presidential power, but also global economic policy and the relationship between Congress and the executive branch.These cases are drawing particular attention because Trump has made tariffs a cornerstone of his economic agenda during his second term, arguing that such powers are essential for national security and financial stability. The court’s eventual ruling will clarify the constitutional boundaries between congressional authority to impose taxes and tariffs, and the executive’s emergency powers. According to The National News, President Trump himself acknowledged the significance of these cases, describing them as a “life or death” issue for the country’s economic and national security future.While much of the focus is on tariffs, the court’s docket remains busy with other oral arguments and decisions. For example, the justices recently considered technical questions about when void judgments can be challenged in court, delving into debates over legal procedure and due process. According to the official Supreme Court oral argument transcripts, the justices questioned lawyers on the timing and nature of motions to vacate judgments that parties allege are void due to lack of jurisdiction or other fundamental legal errors.Elsewhere, according to SCOTUSblog and Oyez, the Court is scheduled to hear arguments in cases touching on a wide range of issues, including federal preemption, ballot access, and challenges to state and federal regulatory authority. Although no blockbuster decisions have been announced in the past three days, anticipation is building for the Court’s rulings on these and other contentious issues.Thanks for tuning in. Don’t forget to subscribe. This has been a Quiet Please production, for more check out quietplease 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

The United States Supreme Court has been in the spotlight this week as it hears arguments on a major case testing presidential authority over tariffs, particularly those imposed by former President Donald Trump. The case centers on whether Trump overstepped his powers by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to place sweeping tariffs on imports. This law, enacted in 1977, was originally crafted to manage financial sanctions during crises, but Trump relied on it to justify broad tariffs as both an economic tool and a foreign policy lever. According to Fortune, Trump has wielded tariffs aggressively, using them for not only trade matters but also as leverage in foreign policy disputes with countries like Brazil and Canada.The central legal question before the justices is whether the president can act unilaterally under emergency powers to regulate tariffs, or if such power is constitutionally reserved for Congress. The debate is especially intense given that lower courts have recently ruled that Trump exceeded his authority, though the tariffs remain in effect pending the Supreme Court’s decision. The Justice Department is standing by the administration’s broad interpretation of presidential power under IEEPA, emphasizing that foreign affairs and national security are traditionally within the executive’s domain.This case also becomes a major test of the so-called “major questions doctrine,” a legal principle the conservative-majority Court has frequently cited to rein in significant executive actions, especially under President Biden. The doctrine holds that Congress must clearly authorize any action by the executive branch that has vast economic or political consequences. Many businesses challenging the tariffs are directly invoking prior Supreme Court decisions, where similar logic was applied to roll back Biden administration initiatives.With oral arguments happening this week, the proceedings are drawing attention for their potential to reshape both presidential power and America’s approach to international trade policy. According to ABC News, Trump himself is closely following the outcome and may even attend arguments in person, a highly unusual move for any former president. If the Supreme Court curtails these emergency tariff powers, it could disrupt both Washington’s negotiating leverage abroad and the global economic landscape, as recent trade deals—such as those affecting European and Canadian imports—hang in the balance.In addition to its sharp implications for executive authority and economic policy, the outcome of this case may trigger ripple effects across global geopolitics, with foreign governments and U.S. businesses bracing for what the Court will decide. The decision, which could come at any time, is poised to be one of the most consequential of this Supreme Court term.Thank you for tuning in and be sure 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