Category Archives: Supreme Court

We Are the Guardrail

The men who wrote the Constitution, ratified 238 years ago, had a lot on their minds. There had never before been a complete, written national constitution anywhere. They were not sure a government which derived its authority from the people it governed could succeed. Some would have gladly declared George Washington King of the United States were he willing to accept the position.

Some feared the people were not qualified to govern. They believed there was a natural ruling class who should be in charge. Some wanted a strong central government. Others wanted power to remain with the individual states, as it had been since the revolution twelve years earlier.

The result was a document in many ways a revolution itself, describing a government of the people, but one purposedly designed to contain the compromise, confusion, and purposeful ambiguity that reflected the debate between the authors. With the addition of 27 amendments, it has survived all this time.

For those who slept through civics class, the Constitution separated the central government into three branches, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. Each had a list of powers. Each had a method of checking the operation of the other two branches. There were important omissions. Items on which the authors could not agree and so left for future generations to sort out. But it has held together for all these years. That says something.

What the authors feared most was that power would corrupt. That malevolent leaders would destroy the nation in search of personal advantage. This was John Adams’ nightmare. In my lifetime, I have never seen anything as corrupt as the current administration. Nor have I found one this corrupt in my study of American history. I mean corrupt not just in a monetary sense, although the avarice of Donald Trump and his family is astounding. I mean also corrupt in what Trump has done to the institutions of government and the rule of law.

That one man could be so misguided is not surprising, although the fact that 77 million voters cast their ballots for him in 2024 is. What is surprising is the degree to which the checks and balances have collapsed. The guardrails have failed.

This is due to the abdication on the part of the legislative branch, which has ceased to provide any meaningful oversight of the executive, failed to enforce its decisions on taxation and spending, and consented to the appointment of some of the most unqualified and actually destructive individuals to positions of power throughout government. There have been 306 calendar days in the year to date. The House of Representatives has been in session for 133 of them. Nice work if you can get it.

The judicial branch has not just abandoned its responsibilities. It has openly ceded its authority to the executive branch. While many lower court judges have blocked Trump’s unlawful excesses, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court has more often than not knocked down those guardrails, allowing Trump to proceed with his executive power grab. With those actions, the Court has greatly tipped the balance of power in the government, allowing for an autocracy at the helm.

The outlook is bleak. But there is one last hope.

We are that hope. We, the people. We, the voters, have now an opportunity to change the direction of the nation. But only if we get off our rears and go out and vote. In the United States, voter turnout for true “off-year” elections (held in odd-numbered years for local and municipal offices) typically falls between 25% and 40% of eligible voters. There are indications this year the turnout will be much greater.

That is a good sign. If you are happy with the way things are going, by all means go out and vote Republican, ensuring that Trump will be unfettered in the next two year. But if you are unhappy with the current state of affairs, vote for Democrats who will raise the guardrails. They will not have the power to reverse the current state of affairs. That decision comes in 2028. But Democratic majorities in Congress will slow down the Trump onslaught and place a spotlight on the abuses of the administration.

We are the final guardrail.

#####

Oyez! Oyez!

The Supreme Court began its 2026–27 term on October 5, 2026. Although the justices probably saw it as just a return to the office. They really did not get their customary three-month vacation, mainly due to the Trump administration’s endless barrage of “emergency motions” begging the conservative majority to stop a nearly unanimous string to lower court orders that Trump stop doing something he was doing that they found to be illegal, unconstitutional, or both. With his posse of six conservatives squarely in his corner, he won most of those emeergency appeals.

The central controversy is whether the Supreme Court is acting as an independent check on President Trump or helping him concentrate power in the presidency. Since his second term began in January 2025, the Court has substantially strengthened his control over government and repeatedly lifted lower-court restrictions on his policies. But it has also rejected some of his initiatives, making the record more complicated than “the Court always sides with Trump.”

We reviewed those cases several times during the last session. Let’s look today on the major cases to watch in the session which has just begun. The Supremes in this session will chime in on climate change, the Second Amendment, voting laws, and religious freedom, among others.

1. Climate Change & Corporate Liability
  • Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County
    • The Issue: The Court kicked off the term by hearing this case on opening day. It decides whether local governments can use state laws to sue oil companies for billions in infrastructure damages caused by climate change, or if federal laws (like the Clean Air Act) preclude those state-level lawsuits.
2. Second Amendment (Assault Weapon Bans)

Viramontes v. Cook County

  • The Issue: This case directly challenges an Illinois county’s ban on AR-15 rifles and high-capacity magazines. The ruling could redefine Second Amendment protections for semi-automatic firearms and impact similar restrictions enacted across 11 different states.
3. Voting Rights & Proof of Citizenship
  • Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota
    • The Issue: Set for argument in December 2026, this case considers the legality of Arizona laws requiring documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections, and whether states can cancel registrations close to election day under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).
4. Religious Freedom vs. LGBTQ Nondiscrimination
  • St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy
    • The Issue: The justices will explore whether religious preschools can be barred from receiving state public funds if they refuse to admit children from LGBTQ families. This tests the boundary between the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and state anti-discrimination policies.
5. Immigration & Executive Authority
  • The docket features highly scrutinized challenges to federal immigration policies. Key questions include whether the administration has the authority to implement third-country deportations (sending migrants to a nation they have no ties to) and whether it can mandate the detention of certain immigrants rather than releasing them while their cases are pending.

All that plus whatever Trump throws at them. It is a full docket. And it will be a busy year.

#####

They Do It Again

With just 39 days to go before the midterm elections the conservative majority on the Supreme Court couldn’t keep its hands off the ballot box. Once more they have used its secret shadow docket to overrule two detailed lower court decisions, allowing their patron Donnie Trump to include records from the Social Security Administration (SSA) in the Department of Homeland Security’s Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database made available to state offices. This allows states to request bulk searches using full or partial SSNs and linked SSA’s master files to verify citizenship for voter registration. Critics fear that states could use the system to purge large numbers of valid voters from their rolls ahead of the midterm elections.

The decision is bad because the Court should not be getting involved in elections, which the Constitution makes clear is, absence legislative action by Congress, a matter for the states to administer. Trump has in fact been pushing Congress to take such action but has failed to get new laws enacted in spite of a majority in both the Senate and the House. Once again, the conservative Court majority just can’t resist tipping the scales in favor of their president.

On the other hand, the order in Department of Homeland Security v. League of Women Voters is not expected to have much of an impact on this November’s election. That is because states are not required to use the federal system, as they might be is a new federal law was anacted, and there is little interest among local and state election officials for it, because it has mistakenly flagged U.S. citizens as noncitizens in past searches.

The Court majority, clearly embarrassed by criticism of its use of the emergency docket to render significant judgments without explanation has, at least, been writing short explanations in recent actions. In this case they wrote that a lower-court ruling which had blocked the administration from rolling out the system was improper because it inhibited “the federal government’s efforts to assist state and local agencies in the proper administration of the midterm elections.”

The emergency ruling was unsigned and gave no vote count, but the court’s three liberal justices joined in dissent, making the 6-3 party line vote obvious. In that 12-page dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that the majority’s decision created the conditions for some states to cancel the voter registrations of at least some recently naturalized citizens or to force them to provide proof of citizenship before voting.

“The harm caused by burdening or disenfranchising even a few lawful voters outweighs the nonexistent harm that the government experiences when it is prevented from taking an action that it likely lacks the authority to take,” she wrote, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Federal law establishes a 90-day “quiet period” before elections, in which wide-scale changes to state voter rolls cannot be made. The provision is meant to avert last-minute chaos in elections and is expected to prevent states from kicking large numbers of voters off their rolls in the weeks leading up to the midterm. Even the majority recognized that the 90-day rule “limits the potential impact” of the court’s action. However, the majority added that states should have the ability to use the federal system to make inquiries about voters on a case-by-case basis.

The conservatives on the Court could have left this matter alone. But that is not their style. The primary issues remain to be hammered out in the lower courts, as they should be. The real threat will be to the election for president in 2028.

Interestingly, the Court also unanimously blocked a Republican-backed congressional map in Missouri for a third time, People Not Politicians v Robert Onder, reverting the state to its 2022 map boundaries for November. With this action the Supremes rejected an appeal backed by the Republicans and the Trump administration, stating that Missouri must conduct its 2026 congressional election using the 2022 map lines following a state court determination that the newer map required voter referendum approval.

It has been a busy summer for the Court. The regular Court term doesn’t even start until October 5!

#####

The Trump Court’s Summer

The Supreme Court is only two thirds of the way through its three-month summer vacation. But the conservative majority has kept busy facilitating Donald Trump‘s marauding destruction of the institutions of the government, both physical and abstract. In so doing they have supported his strategy to wreak havoc on the nation, sowing a path of destruction so quickly his opponents can’t mount a defense quickly enough to stop him from achieving his goals. Their embarrassingly rash decisions make a mockery of the judicial process and the rule of law.

Read more

The Supremes 2026

The Supreme Court wrapped up its 2025-2026 term with a flood of high-profile decisions announced on June 26, 29, and 30th. The usual end of the session reviews quickly flooded the media. Most watchers of the Supremes tried to frame the session as a win or loss for Donald Trump. Or at least a win or loss for the conservation majority which has dominated the Court in recent years.

Read more

Yearning to Breathe Free

The poem on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor is a sonnet titled “The New Colossus,” written by American poet Emma Lazarus in 1883. Its famous lines, “Give me your tired, your poor, / Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free” transformed the statue from a monument of generic liberty into a worldwide symbol of immigration, refuge, and hope.

Lady Liberty was the first thing millions of immigrants saw as they arrived in the New World. “Her name,” the poem declares, is “Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand Glows world-wide welcome.”

Read more

John Roberts is …

John Roberts is displeased. John Roberts is exasperated. John Roberts is frustrated. John Roberts is annoyed. John Roberts is irked. John Roberts is any other of the many synonyms my thesaurus suggested instead of the word I originally used, which it found to be “vulgar.”

What has the Chief Justice of the United States in high dudgeon (I thought of that one myself) is the reaction to the Court’s recent decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which drove a stake through the heart of the only section of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 the Court had not previously decimated. With the vote falling along party lines, many critics condemned the decision as racist and political.

Read more
« Older Entries