The latest news from the US Supreme Court includes a mix of significant rulings, ongoing legal disputes, and upcoming matters likely to shape the coming term. One of the biggest headlines has been a major development in voting rights. According to the Campaign Legal Center, the Supreme Court has temporarily paused a ruling from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals that would have effectively blocked private citizens and groups from suing to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in seven states, including North Dakota, Arkansas, and Missouri. This pause leaves in place fair state legislative maps for Native American voters in North Dakota, while the Supreme Court considers whether to reverse the lower court’s decision and let individuals once again bring these critical voting rights challenges.

On the criminal justice front, the State of Florida’s scheduled execution of Edward James Zakrzewski II for July 31 remains active, as the Supreme Court has not intervened after the Florida Supreme Court denied relief. Death penalty cases continue to draw significant public attention each time they come before the Court.

Looking at broader trends, SCOTUSblog reports that the Court recently ruled allowing the Trump administration to remove three members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, a decision that could have important implications for the boundaries of presidential power over independent agencies. In her public remarks this week, Justice Elena Kagan criticized recent pro-Trump rulings from the Court’s emergency docket, highlighting concerns about the majority bypassing full explanation and transparency in high-profile, time-sensitive orders. ABC News highlighted these comments, reinforcing ongoing debates about the Court’s decision-making processes and the perception of partisan influence.

Bloomberg reported that while the Trump administration succeeded in winning a Supreme Court order earlier this month that permitted layoffs at the Department of Education, implementation of several other aspects of the administration’s agenda remains tied up in lower courts, signaling a period of ongoing legal contention even after marquee Supreme Court wins.

Meanwhile, the new Supreme Court term is set to include cases with potentially wide-reaching consequences. For instance, SCOTUSblog noted that the justices have agreed to hear a case originating from Louisiana, where a Muslim prisoner’s religious liberty was violated when prison officials forcibly shaved his head— a dispute that will test the limits of religious protections for prisoners.

Finally, the Court’s role in environmental and land management disputes remains salient, as highlighted by the ongoing public lands lawsuit between the state of Utah and federal government. While the Supreme Court rejected Utah’s initial direct filing attempting to force federal land sales earlier this year, state officials intend to revive their efforts in lower federal courts.

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.ai

Get the best deals https://amzn.to/3ODvOta

Listeners, here’s the very latest on the US Supreme Court. The justices have just wrapped up a highly watched term, delivering important rulings and setting the stage for continued debate on key social and political issues. One of the most significant developments is ongoing fallout from the Court’s recent term, which was marked by major opinions on religious liberty, immigration, and abortion. News outlets and legal analysts have noted that several high-profile religious freedom cases and questions about the government’s authority have shaped the legal landscape, and more disputes in this area are likely to reach the Court soon, according to Arkansas Catholic and other legal news sources.

A critical headline in recent days involves the Supreme Court allowing the Department of Education to resume massive layoffs. As explained by NARFE and echoed by opinion columnists in the Los Angeles Times, the Court, with little explanation, lifted an injunction that had protected nearly 1,400 Education Department employees from termination as part of the Trump administration's workforce reduction efforts. Justice Sonia Sotomayor sharply criticized this action in her dissent, arguing that the move enables the executive branch to bypass Congress by effectively dissolving the agency through mass firings. The practical result is that the agency—once over 4,000 strong—could now see its workforce cut by more than half, potentially disrupting vital services like student financial aid and civil rights enforcement.

Another closely watched legal battle concerns the Supreme Court’s stance on nationwide, or "universal," injunctions. Lawfare reports that just a few weeks ago, in Trump v. CASA, the justices sharply limited the ability of lower courts to issue injunctions that apply nationwide. Instead, the Court held that federal courts generally can grant relief only to the parties before them, not to everyone potentially affected by the law being challenged. This decision is altering how challenges to federal policies—especially controversial executive actions—will be litigated going forward. Legal analysts are closely watching to see if more states begin filing lawsuits directly in the Supreme Court to obtain broad relief on pressing constitutional questions.

On the tech front, NetChoice, a prominent industry group representing companies like Google and Meta, just petitioned Justice Alito to block a new Mississippi law that requires social networks to verify the ages of all users and shield minors from harmful material, including content promoting eating disorders and substance abuse. NetChoice is arguing that the law, similar to a California statute struck down in 2011, violates the First Amendment. The initial injunction blocked the law for now, and all eyes are on how quickly the Supreme Court will act and what it signals for similar social media regulations facing challenges in other states.

Behind the scenes, legal commentators like those in the Los Angeles Times have criticized the Supreme Court’s increasing reliance on the so-called "shadow docket"—making significant, often far-reaching decisions without providing opinions or detailed explanations. For example, in immigration, the justices allowed deportations of Venezuelan and Cuban nationals to proceed despite lower court concerns about lack of due process and the risk of harm, again issuing their order without explanation. Justice Sotomayor has again been vocal in dissent, warning of the human costs and the need for transparency.

Redistricting fights continue to land before the justices as well. Recently filed materials point to continued wrangling over the interpretation of the Voting Rights Act and the drawing of electoral maps, with some states seeking emergency intervention by the Court while ongoing appeals continue in the lower courts.

There are no blockbuster new merits opinions given the term’s conclusion, but high-stakes emergency cases, major dissents, and signs of shifting doctrine have kept the Court in the headlines. As always, the next round of high-profile cases will be closely watched when arguments resume in the fall.

Thanks for tuning in—if you want more updates on SCOTUS and legal news, 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.ai

Get the best deals https://amzn.to/3ODvOta

The Supreme Court has been making headlines with several controversial and consequential decisions that have sparked intense debate among the justices and the public. In a significant move, the Court recently allowed the Trump Administration to proceed with plans to dramatically reduce the federal workforce and restructure the Department of Education, a key pillar of Trump's broader effort—often referred to as Project 2025—to reshape federal agencies through executive action. The Court declined to provide any written explanation for its summary decision, drawing a scathing 19-page dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was joined by the Court’s two other liberal justices. Sotomayor sharply criticized the majority’s willingness to give the executive branch wide latitude, warning that the Judiciary should check alleged lawlessness, not expedite it, and arguing that the decision hands the Executive the power to repeal statutes by firing those responsible for implementing them.

This ruling is just one example from a term marked by deep divisions. During the most recent term, the Court was split in the majority of cases, with only about 42% of Opinions of the Court being unanimous. The dissents have been particularly fiery, especially from the trio of Democratic appointees. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a notable solo dissent this term, accusing the majority of furthering “an existential threat to the rule of law.” Justices Barrett and Sotomayor openly traded barbs in their opinions, with Sotomayor’s dissents standing out for their direct language, accusing the Court of launching an attack on the legal system, favoring the government’s gamesmanship, and providing what she described as an open invitation for the executive branch to sidestep constitutional limits. She expressed grave concern over the majority’s willingness to allow policies she argues could cause real harm, especially in cases involving families and the rights of vulnerable individuals.

In another recent 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court supported parents seeking a preliminary injunction against a school board, highlighting ongoing legal debates over education policy and constitutional rights. The decision, handed down in late June, continues to fuel uncertainty for school districts across the country as they await more detailed guidance from the Court.

Outside of decisions, the Supreme Court is also peripherally involved in other high-profile legal battles, including those related to the unsealing of grand jury transcripts in the prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. However, legal analysts indicate that the Supreme Court may not take direct action soon because appeals are still pending, and the privacy of victims remains a major concern.

Listeners should also note that the broader legal landscape is buzzing, with former President Donald Trump filing a $10 billion defamation suit against Dow Jones and the Wall Street Journal, reflecting ongoing tensions between the presidency, the judiciary, and the media. Meanwhile, lower court decisions relevant to the Supreme Court's work continue to make waves, such as a federal court tossing Trump’s copyright lawsuit against Bob Woodward and active federal bench nominations moving through the Senate.

Thanks for tuning in, and if you want to keep up with more legal news and landmark decisions, 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.ai

Get the best deals https://amzn.to/3ODvOta

The U.S. Supreme Court has closed out its term with a wave of impactful decisions and headline-grabbing actions, touching on everything from telecom policy and the future of federal agencies to high-level personnel moves and the balance of executive power. Perhaps the most immediate development is the Court's recent decision to uphold the federal Universal Service Fund, a longstanding program that collects fees from phone providers to subsidize internet and phone access in underserved and rural areas nationwide. This 6-3 ruling holds particular importance for rural communities that rely on telehealth and educational connectivity. Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the majority, rejected claims that the program’s funding mechanism amounts to an unconstitutional tax, siding with the FCC’s authority to administer the fund. The conservative dissent underscored ongoing debates about Congressional authority and federal agency power.

On the administrative front, listeners should be aware of a broader trend: the Supreme Court has been steadily dismantling the longstanding practice of deferring to federal agency expertise. Since last summer, with decisions like Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and others, judges rather than scientific agencies now play a larger role in interpreting the law, which significantly impacts how regulations in public health, the environment, and technology will move forward. Agencies are already facing a sharp increase in legal challenges to their guidance and rules, and experts predict a chilling effect, as new regulations are likely to be challenged more frequently.

More specifically on environmental policy, the Court unanimously determined in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County that the National Environmental Policy Act now requires agencies to limit the scope of their environmental impact assessments to issues over which they have direct regulatory authority. This shift means less emphasis on how projects interact with the broader ecosystem, offering an easier path for large infrastructure developments but raising concerns among scientists about the disregard for systemic ecological consequences.

In labor and education news, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to proceed with layoffs of more than 1,300 Education Department employees, although the case itself is still under challenge and the ultimate legality of the layoffs will be determined later. These workers were handling protections for students and teachers against discrimination, supporting college financial aid offices, and keeping essential statistics. The ongoing debate is emblematic of the larger question about the president's power to reorganize or dismantle key pieces of the federal workforce.

Another noteworthy, if quieter, procedural shift came with the Court's move to limit the use of “universal injunctions” by district courts. These broad orders, which could previously halt federal actions nationwide based on a single judge’s ruling, are now restricted, impacting how quickly and expansively federal policies can be challenged and paused in the courts.

Behind the scenes and in legal analysis, commentators are sounding alarms about the Supreme Court’s increasing use of the “shadow docket”—decisions issued without full briefing or public argument, sometimes with only brief or unsigned orders. Critics argue that this undermines transparency and the traditional rule of law, especially as such rulings grow in frequency and importance.

Finally, the Court’s evolving doctrine on the president’s removal powers over executive agency heads is making headlines. In recent decisions, the justices signaled more willingness to allow the president to unilaterally dismiss agency chiefs, narrowing longstanding protections for agencies’ independence and raising questions about future White House influence over federal oversight bodies. These developments could have wide-ranging impacts on agencies that protect labor rights, oversee fair hiring, and manage other significant public interests. Many observers see the Court’s current direction as aligning closely with conservative priorities aimed at reducing the capacity and autonomy of the administrative state.

Thanks for tuning in—be sure to subscribe for more crucial updates. This has been a Quiet Please production, for more check out quietplease dot ai.

For more http://www.quietplease.ai

Get the best deals https://amzn.to/3ODvOta

Listeners, in a sweeping development earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court made headlines by lifting an injunction that had blocked President Trump’s push to dramatically downsize the Department of Education. This decision, made without explanation from the conservative majority, allows the administration to move forward with mass layoffs that have already cut nearly half of the agency’s workforce and to begin shifting oversight of federal student loans and other core functions to states. Education Secretary Linda McMahon praised this move as a victory for executive authority, whereas dissenting Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned it could harm millions of students and jeopardize civil rights protections. National Parents Union president Keri Rodrigues sharply criticized the Court, calling the ruling an unlawful power grab and a risk to students nationwide. Legal challenges over the fate of the Education Department are still being fought in lower courts, but for now, the Trump administration’s overhaul can continue.

The Supreme Court’s recent activity has generally favored President Trump’s efforts to expand executive power. The justices, acting largely on their "shadow docket"—the emergency channel for fast, often unexplained orders—have permitted not only the Education Department downsizing, but also recent high-profile decisions including the deportation of certain immigrants and controversial changes affecting transgender military service.

These orders continue a pattern from the just-concluded term, which saw a flurry of consequential rulings on the power of federal judges, states’ authority over education and healthcare, and nationwide injunctions. Most notably, the Court restricted federal judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions, a decision seen as a major victory for Trump’s executive initiatives. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority, emphasizing that federal courts are not meant to oversee the entire executive branch but rather resolve specific constitutional disputes as authorized by Congress. Legal commentators, such as Erwin Chemerinsky from UC Berkeley, warn this could diminish judicial oversight over executive overreach.

The justices also issued major decisions on key social issues. In the closely watched United States v. Skrmetti, the Court upheld Tennessee’s law banning gender-affirming care for minors, stating that such regulations are an area where states hold broad legislative authority due to ongoing medical debates. Another ruling determined that majority group members alleging workplace discrimination are held to the same legal standards as minority plaintiffs, marking a notable shift in employment discrimination law.

Education again took center stage in Supreme Court deliberations, with the justices deadlocked 4-4 in a case about religious charter schools in Oklahoma, leaving a lower court ruling in place that blocks the establishment of religious public schools. Experts from the Brookings Institution note that, although the Court didn’t break new ground in that decision due to Justice Amy Coney Barrett recusing herself, recent opinions suggest a growing willingness by the majority to elevate religious liberty claims, potentially foreshadowing further shifts in how church-state issues intersect with public education.

As the Court prepares for its next term, listeners can expect more cases on religious liberty, campaign finance, and digital copyright, indicating that the justices are poised to significantly influence federal-state relations and individual rights in the months ahead.

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.ai

Get the best deals https://amzn.to/3ODvOta

Listeners, over the past several days, the U.S. Supreme Court has been at the center of sweeping changes and headline-making decisions. Most notably, the justices recently allowed President Donald Trump to move forward with a major executive order, which involves restructuring federal agencies and could lead to mass layoffs of federal workers. This action reflects a trend in which the Court has frequently sided with the Trump administration, often using its so-called “shadow docket”—a fast-track process for making rulings without full briefings or oral arguments. Through this emergency docket, Trump has also been permitted to proceed with controversial plans on mass deportations and to ban transgender people from serving in the military, giving his administration the green light to implement contentious policies, at least temporarily.

Ending its term just days ago, the Supreme Court issued major decisions that are reshaping American governance and individual rights. One of the most consequential rulings upheld a state law banning gender-affirming care for minors, marking a significant moment in the national debate over transgender rights and state authority. Civil rights and remedies for challenging federal policies have also been central themes, with the justices narrowing the ability of lower courts to block nationwide policies, further strengthening executive power.

On the topic of religious liberty, the Court handed parents a victory, ruling that they can opt their children out of public-school instruction on LGBTQ+ themes if it conflicts with their religious beliefs. In another closely watched case, the justices deadlocked on whether a Catholic charter school could receive public funding, leaving the lower court’s ruling in place and signaling that the issue may return to the docket soon. Elsewhere, the Court declined to take up a case seeking to protect a sacred Native American site from mining, although advocates hope a new petition, in light of recent rulings, might prompt reconsideration.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration’s efforts to restrict birthright citizenship were dealt a blow when a federal judge blocked the enforcement of the executive order just days after the Supreme Court’s ruling limited the power of judges to issue nationwide injunctions. The intersection between Supreme Court decisions and lower court actions is generating a dynamic legal landscape, with several major issues likely to return to the high court in the near future.

Listeners should also be aware that these Supreme Court actions are already having significant ripple effects across the federal government, particularly as agencies prepare for restructuring, employee layoffs, and the resumption of stalled policy initiatives following these legal green lights.

Thanks for tuning in and don’t forget to subscribe for the latest updates. This has been a Quiet Please production, for more check out quietplease dot ai.

For more http://www.quietplease.ai

Get the best deals https://amzn.to/3ODvOta

The past several days have seen a flurry of significant developments at the U.S. Supreme Court. In a rare move for July, the justices delivered a series of headline-grabbing decisions that have shaped the national conversation. On July 9, the Court lifted a lower court order blocking federal layoffs at nearly two dozen agencies, which effectively allowed the Trump administration to move forward with a large reduction of the federal workforce. This ruling, issued on an 8-1 vote, underscored the president’s broad authority to reorganize executive branch agencies, though more legal challenges are expected as these layoffs begin to roll out, with the State Department already announcing over a thousand job cuts according to OSV News and GoLocalProv.

That same day, the Supreme Court refused a request from Florida to revive its hardline immigration law, which made it a state crime to enter Florida illegally or to re-enter the state after deportation. The Court’s decision to allow a lower court’s block to remain in place represents a setback for Florida but signals the continuing legal debate over the extent of state versus federal power in managing immigration enforcement.

The justices also recently addressed the Trump administration’s controversial efforts to end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented parents. A federal district court issued a nationwide injunction to prevent the end of birthright citizenship, and the Supreme Court’s recent decisions indicate this issue will likely be back before them soon as legal battles intensify. Writing for the majority in Trump v. Casa, Inc., Justice Amy Coney Barrett made clear that federal courts have limited power to oversee executive actions beyond the authority granted by Congress, a stance that has sparked substantial public and academic debate.

Religious liberty was another major theme as the Court concluded its 2024-2025 term. It handed down multiple unanimous decisions reinforcing protections for religious entities, including a high-profile case involving the Catholic Charities Bureau and a state labor commission in Wisconsin. The Court found in favor of the religious organization, highlighting its ongoing commitment to ensure that Americans can practice their faith in public life without government interference. This trend is expected to continue into the new term, with more religious liberty cases already on the docket.

Looking ahead, observers note the Court’s recent rulings have set important precedents on the scope of federal judicial power, particularly around the use of nationwide injunctions. Legal experts point to the Trump v. Casa decision as a turning point, limiting federal judges’ ability to block executive actions nationwide, which has been met with both praise and criticism at legal conferences and in the public sphere.

Meanwhile, voting rights advocates are closely watching the Supreme Court as Native American groups in North Dakota signal their intent to petition for review after an appeals court denied their standing in a voting discrimination case. This case could have significant implications for the ability of private parties to sue under the Voting Rights Act going forward.

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.ai

Get the best deals https://amzn.to/3ODvOta

Listeners, there have been several significant developments involving the US Supreme Court over the past few days that you should know about. One of the most consequential headlines is the Court’s decision to uphold a key provision of the Affordable Care Act. In Braidwood Management Inc. v. Becerra, the justices voted 6-3 to maintain the ACA’s requirement that most health insurance plans must cover preventive services at no cost to patients. This means that vital services like annual wellness exams, cancer and diabetes screenings, HIV prevention, mental health assessments, and routine vaccinations will continue to be provided without copays or deductibles. This decision has been praised by healthcare leaders for safeguarding patients’ access to essential and potentially lifesaving care while broader challenges to the ACA move forward.

Another major Supreme Court action involved the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On June 20, the Court issued a landmark ruling in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corp., dramatically changing how lower courts handle TCPA claims. The Supreme Court determined that district courts are no longer bound to follow Federal Communications Commission interpretations of the law; instead, they must interpret the TCPA independently. This decision is expected to trigger a wave of new litigation and may prompt businesses to reevaluate their consumer communications practices.

Turning to immigration, the Supreme Court delivered a decision in Riley v. Bondi that will create new complexities for noncitizens fighting deportation orders. The Court ruled that the 30-day deadline to seek federal court review of a removal order begins as soon as the Department of Homeland Security issues a reinstatement or administrative removal order, even if the person is still seeking protection from removal in immigration court. Previously, most appeals courts and the Justice Department had agreed that the clock should not start until those protection proceedings end. The justices clarified, however, that missing the 30-day deadline is not an absolute barrier to review, as it is a claims-processing rule rather than a jurisdictional requirement.

A related headline involves birthright citizenship. Several federal courts, reacting to a recent Supreme Court ruling, have narrowed the scope of their injunctions against an executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to noncitizen parents. The Supreme Court recently limited the ability of lower courts to issue broad, nationwide injunctions, instead pushing for narrower orders that focus on the specific plaintiffs involved. Following this, a New Hampshire federal judge issued an injunction protecting only infants affected by the policy, pending further appeals, while larger constitutional questions remain unsettled.

There was also fresh commentary on how the Supreme Court is handling emergency relief requests, often referred to as the “shadow docket.” Just this week, in cases like Trump v. CASA, the Court has continued its trend of granting government requests for stays on lower court rulings without detailed explanation, especially on issues involving the scope of injunctions against federal policies. These orders have drawn criticism from some justices about the standards the Court uses, particularly regarding the government’s claims of irreparable harm.

Listeners interested in the ongoing post-9/11 legal proceedings may have heard recent expert analysis on plea deals in the Guantánamo military commission case. While this matter is not before the Supreme Court at present, ongoing litigation and the Court’s evolving standards for emergency relief continue to shape the broader legal landscape, including high-profile terrorism cases.

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.ai

Get the best deals https://amzn.to/3ODvOta

In the past three days, the US Supreme Court has made major headlines by allowing the Trump administration to proceed with sweeping cuts to the federal workforce. On Tuesday, the justices issued a 6-3 decision granting an emergency request from the White House, which lifts a lower court’s injunction that had blocked Executive Order No. 14210. This order empowers federal agencies to implement large-scale reductions in force and reorganizations, something officials describe as an effort to streamline government, but which critics—including labor unions and a coalition of local governments and nonprofits—argue bypasses Congress and threatens vital public services.

The Court’s majority did not decide on the legality of specific agency cuts, but rather focused on the executive order’s validity and the factors required for an emergency stay. The decision allows the administration’s plans to move forward while legal challenges continue in the lower courts and potentially return to the high court for full review. According to reports from Fox News and GovExec, federal agencies are expected to act quickly and begin mass layoffs now that the injunction has been lifted, as dozens of reduction-in-force actions had been on hold during the legal fight.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a pointed dissent, arguing that the majority ignored detailed fact-finding by the lower courts and suggesting the Court’s ruling permits an “unprecedented and congressionally unsanctioned dismantling of the federal government.” She warned that the administration’s actions could result in mass terminations, program cancellations, and a significant reduction of federal services before courts have had a chance to rule on the president’s authority.

This decision is also notable for its use of the Supreme Court’s so-called “shadow docket,” meaning it was made through an emergency order rather than after full briefing and oral argument. According to the Democracy Forward Foundation, the Trump administration has increasingly relied on this expedited process to push through executive actions while bypassing the traditional, more deliberative judicial review. Critics argue this practice diminishes transparency and long-term accountability.

Listeners, thanks for tuning in. Don’t forget 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.ai

Get the best deals https://amzn.to/3ODvOta

Listeners, the latest from the US Supreme Court features a string of high-impact rulings and notable activity just as the Court enters its summer recess.

The most prominent headline centers on a Supreme Court decision that sharply limits the power of federal district judges to issue nationwide injunctions. This landmark ruling came in the case Trump v. CASA, Inc., and it directly impacts how lower courts can block federal policies, especially on contentious issues like immigration. In this case, multiple lawsuits challenged a recent executive order from President Trump seeking to restrict birthright citizenship for children born in the US to undocumented immigrants or those with temporary visas. The Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the executive order itself, but concluded that lower courts overstepped by halting the policy nationwide. Instead, the justices insisted injunctions should generally be limited to the specific plaintiffs before the court. This decision is expected to reshape the landscape for lawsuits against federal policies, restricting the use of universal injunctions and affecting ongoing litigation around major federal actions.

Another major development is the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Texas’s age verification law for adult websites in Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton. This law requires commercial websites with substantial sexually explicit content to verify users’ ages before granting access, aiming to protect minors from harmful material. The Court applied intermediate scrutiny and found the statute permissible, saying the incidental burden on adults’ access did not violate the First Amendment. Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, criticized the majority for not applying stricter scrutiny and warned that such laws risk chilling protected adult speech. This ruling could pave the way for similar regulations in other states, with nearly half the country having considered or enacted comparable online age verification laws.

Elsewhere, the justices’ activity has shifted from hearing cases to public appearances and academic events. According to Fix the Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is slated for several upcoming speaking engagements, including an event with the Indianapolis Bar Association and appearances at legal and literary festivals. Justice Kavanaugh will participate in the Eighth Circuit Judicial Conference later this summer, and retired Justice Stephen Breyer is scheduled for a public conversation at Edith Wharton’s former home in Massachusetts.

As for pending business, the Court recently remanded several cases from the appeals courts for reconsideration in light of its latest precedents, signaling ongoing refinement of federal judicial authority and standards. Meanwhile, legal circles are watching closely for upcoming cert grants on hot-button topics such as the rights of transgender athletes and campaign finance, which could further shape national policy in the coming term.

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.ai

Get the best deals https://amzn.to/3ODvOta