All articles tagged with #jurisprudence
In Chatrie v. United States, Justice Elena Kagan rejects evaluating surveillance piece-by-piece, holding the Fourth Amendment protects against comprehensive digital data collection—from location history to cloud data—regardless of duration, and extends Carpenter’s emphasis on what data reveals to modern technology, signaling stronger constitutional privacy against fragmented or voluntary data sharing.
The Supreme Court, in a 6–3 decision, overruled Humphrey’s Executor and held that the president may remove heads of independent agencies (as with the FTC), advancing the Project 2025 blueprint; in a separate 5–4 ruling it preserved the Federal Reserve’s independence by allowing Lisa Cook to remain on the board after concerns about due process. The paired rulings mark a major shift toward executive control over agency officials, while preserving a narrow exception for the Fed.
Slate argues the Supreme Court’s June shadow-docket decision enshrined a colorblind interpretation of the 14th Amendment that blocks race-conscious remedies and will likely worsen racial discrimination in voting, policing, education, housing, and employment.
In a 6–3 ruling on FS Credit v. Saba Capital, Barrett’s majority narrows the private right to sue under the Investment Company Act, while Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s blistering dissent accuses the majority of openly showing contempt for Congress and elevating judicial policy preferences over legislative history, arguing that relying on legislative history preserves congressional will and keeps the court in its constitutional lane.
Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick argues that Todd Blanche’s bid to be attorney general could become a GOP test of independence and accountability, given his Trump-aligned DOJ tenure, the controversy over a $1.776 billion slush fund settlement and a broad civil release, and whether Senate Republicans will demand real scrutiny or yield to total deference to the president—shaping the future handling of the rule of law.
A planned $10 billion IRS settlement over a leaked tax-return scandal would immunize Trump and his family and create a $1.7 billion anti-weaponization fund, but courts and lawmakers have derailed the deal: acting AG Todd Blanche says the fund isn’t moving forward, a temporary restraining order blocked it, and Judge Kathleen Williams reopened the Trump–DOJ case to probe collusion and legitimacy, with Democrats promising to curb presidential tax immunity—potentially affecting Trump’s holdings and the rule of law.
An unsigned Supreme Court order handed Alabama a sweeping victory by reinstating a long-disputed 2023 map that heavily dilutes Black voters, expanding a Callais-like standard into constitutional voting-rights rules, and eroding a key remedy against racial gerrymandering; dissenters warn the move invites chaos in elections, undermines democratic norms, and signals that minority rights in redistricting can be sacrificed for partisan ends.
Slate reports that the DOJ is reportedly investigating E. Jean Carroll for not disclosing that Reid Hoffman funded part of her legal defense in her civil case against Donald Trump; Hoffman is also under a separate DOJ inquiry over funding suits against Trump. Critics say the move appears to be retaliation intended to intimidate witnesses and chill disclosures, while a U.S. attorney’s office denied opening Carroll’s case. Legal experts say the prosecution chances are slim, suggesting the aim may be political pressure rather than a pursuit of justice.
Slate’s Lithwick and Stern argue the Supreme Court is broadly enabling Donald Trump’s maximized executive power through rapid and secretive shadow-docket decisions, with Chief Justice Roberts shaping optics to advance judicial supremacy; even as the court occasionally pushes back, the pattern risks eroding checks and balances and could precipitate a constitutional crisis if Trump refuses to concede gains or accepts losses.
In Pitchford v. Cain, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision joined by Chief Justice Roberts and the court’s liberals, held that Mississippi trial courts violated Batson by allowing Black jurors to be struck and denying the defense a chance to rebut the reasons, a procedural error that could lead to a new trial. The opinion highlights Kavanaugh’s historically clear-eyed stance on jury racism, while also noting Roberts’ selective approach to racism in other contexts and suggesting that the court’s colorblind framework can, in limited cases, promote equality.
Slate legal analyst Aziz Huq argues that acting AG Todd Blanche’s bid to grant Trump and his family “forever immunity” rests on a nonexistent constitutional power to bind future officials or to immunize future actions from the law. The piece stresses that no branch—Congress or the president—can unilaterally erase future accountability, and that presidential pardons are personal and limited. Blanche’s move would set a dangerous precedent, potentially allowing any administration to permanently shield statutes from enforcement and undermine the rule of law; the article urges rejecting this power grab and reinforcing constitutional limits on executive authority.
A federal judge dismissed all charges against the Broadview Six after the DOJ admitted prosecutorial misconduct—vouching to grand jurors, altering grand jury composition, and undisclosed communications—leading to a sharp rebuke of prosecutors; the ruling underscores concerns about First Amendment rights and the DOJ’s power, and discusses potential compensation avenues via a Trump‑funded “weaponization” slush fund.
The Supreme Court blocked President Trump's attempt to deploy the National Guard in Chicago for immigration enforcement, ruling that federal law likely prohibits such use outside extreme circumstances, marking a significant legal setback for Trump and limiting presidential military authority in domestic law enforcement.
The article discusses the dangers faced by Jewish communities when expressing their identity publicly, highlighted by the murder of Rabbi Eli Schlanger at Bondi Beach, and explores how societal norms and attitudes, especially among younger generations, influence the safety and visibility of minorities in democratic societies.
The Supreme Court examined challenges to Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs, revealing that these tariffs are essentially a tax on Americans and highlighting the economic and constitutional issues involved, including the president's broad power to impose tariffs under the IEEPA and the economic misconceptions surrounding trade deficits.