Five Major SCOTUS Decisions Expected This Summer

[TBoneTX 45,248]

Five Major SCOTUS Decisions Expected This Summer

 

Every June, legal analysts, political pundits, and Court watchers brace for what has become one of the most significant—and oftentimes nerve-wracking—annual political events: the yearly release of long-awaited Supreme Court opinions.

The Court already made an early splash this term in March with its historic 9-0 ruling that Colorado does not have the constitutional authority to unilaterally remove Donald Trump from its state primary ballots.  In just a few weeks, the justices are expected to hand down more noteworthy decisions that could have significant implications on American politics, the November presidential election, and the future of the law itself.

Here are five cases to follow.  [...]

 

https://amac.us/newsline/society/five-major-scotus-decisions-expected-this-summer/

[TBoneTX 45,248]

One down, in both senses.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SCOTUS Green-Lights Feds' Big Tech Censorship Scheme Ahead Of 2024 Election

 

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed a lower court's injunction prohibiting the federal government from colluding with Big Tech companies to censor posts it doesn't like, effectively green-lighting the Biden administration's ability to carry out such operations during the 2024 election.

"To establish standing, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a Government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek.  Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction," Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the court's majority.  [...]

 

https://thefederalist.com/2024/06/26/scotus-green-lights-feds-big-tech-censorship-scheme-ahead-of-2024-election/

[Dashinka 24,479]

6 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

One down, in both senses.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SCOTUS Green-Lights Feds' Big Tech Censorship Scheme Ahead Of 2024 Election

 

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed a lower court's injunction prohibiting the federal government from colluding with Big Tech companies to censor posts it doesn't like, effectively green-lighting the Biden administration's ability to carry out such operations during the 2024 election.

"To establish standing, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a Government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek.  Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction," Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the court's majority.  [...]

 

https://thefederalist.com/2024/06/26/scotus-green-lights-feds-big-tech-censorship-scheme-ahead-of-2024-election/

This one was interesting in that the majority did not actually rule on the merits, but rather took a lack of standing approach.  I don't understand the statement of needing to show a substantial risk that in the near future they will suffer an injury...  So by that logic, SCOTUS will only take up cases of potential future injury?

[Dashinka 24,479]

Probably not the most high profile, but still a decision in the right direction.  Still trying to understand why the ultra-leftist justices are against allowing someone to have a jury trial, and are all for the Deep State.

 

Did SCOTUS Start Dismantling the Bureaucratic State?

 

We didn't get the Loper Bright ruling or a final decision on the Chevron doctrine today. However, the Supreme Court may have kicked a strut out from underneath the bureaucratic state today unexpectedly, in a case involving the Securities and Exchange Commission -- and the Seventh Amendment.

 

In sum, the civil penalties in this case are designed to punish and deter, not to compensate. They are therefore “a type of remedy at common law that could only be enforced in courts of law.” Ibid. That conclusion effectively decides that this suit implicates the Seventh Amendment right, and that a defendant would be entitled to a jury on these claims. See id., at 421–423. ...

 

According to the SEC, these are actions under the “antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws” for “fraudulent conduct.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 72a–73a (opinion of the Commission). They provide civil penalties, a punitive remedy that we have recognized “could only be enforced in courts of law.” Tull, 481 U. S., at 422. And they target the same basic conduct as common law fraud, employ the same terms of art, and operate pursuant to similar legal principles. See supra, at 10–12. In short, this action involves a “matter[] of private rather than public right.” Granfinanciera, 492 U. S., at 56. Therefore, “Congress may not ‘withdraw’” it “‘from judicial cognizance.’” Stern, 564 U. S., at 484 (quoting Murray’s Lessee, 18 How., at 284). 

 

https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2024/06/27/did-scotus-start-dismantling-the-bureaucratic-state-n3791032

[Dashinka 24,479]

A couple of major decisions today.  Kind of a blow to the DoJ and the Deep State.

 

https://www.scotusblog.com

 

Supreme Court rules in favor of Jan. 6 Capitol riot participant who challenged obstruction conviction
 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-rules-favor-jan-6-capitol-riot-participant-challenged-obstruction-conviction
 

Supreme Court sides with fishermen in landmark case deciding fate of the administrative state
 

“Chevron is overruled," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court's majority. 
 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-sides-fishermen-landmark-case-deciding-fate-administrative-state

Edited June 28 by Dashinka

[TBoneTX 45,248]

6 hours ago, Dashinka said:

A couple of major decisions today.  Kind of a blow to the DoJ and the Deep State.

Yes -- important, and a relief to see!

 

Here's a more pessimistic post, part of some of mine from the VJ server changeover, recovered and posted here:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Supreme Court Is Not Going To Save You
 

The Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling in Murthy v. Missouri dropped Wednesday, shattering the hopes of conservatives that maybe, just maybe, the Judicial Branch would stand up for the First Amendment rights of ordinary Americans against the egregious abuses of the executive bureaucracy.

But no.  The Court instead ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing because the Biden White House allegedly backed off of its censorship campaign after the 2022 midterms (it didn't).  The ruling essentially allows the federal government to continue trampling on the First Amendment rights of ordinary Americans by deputizing social media companies to do what federal agencies cannot do directly: police what Americans are allowed to say online.  [...]

https://thefederalist.com/2024/06/26/the-supreme-court-is-not-going-to-save-you/

[Dashinka 24,479]

56 minutes ago, TBoneTX said:

Yes -- important, and a relief to see!

 

Here's a more pessimistic post, part of some of mine from the VJ server changeover, recovered and posted here:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Supreme Court Is Not Going To Save You
 

The Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling in Murthy v. Missouri dropped Wednesday, shattering the hopes of conservatives that maybe, just maybe, the Judicial Branch would stand up for the First Amendment rights of ordinary Americans against the egregious abuses of the executive bureaucracy.

But no.  The Court instead ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing because the Biden White House allegedly backed off of its censorship campaign after the 2022 midterms (it didn't).  The ruling essentially allows the federal government to continue trampling on the First Amendment rights of ordinary Americans by deputizing social media companies to do what federal agencies cannot do directly: police what Americans are allowed to say online.  [...]

https://thefederalist.com/2024/06/26/the-supreme-court-is-not-going-to-save-you/

I don’t think this is the last we will hear of this one.

[TBoneTX 45,248]

Supreme Court Votes 6-3 That Biden Never Had a Six Handicap

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In another landmark decision, the Supreme Court of the United States has just voted 6-3 that President Biden never had a six handicap.

The majority opinion was authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, while Justices Barrett, Alito, and Kavanaugh also wrote concurring opinions.  Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson all dissented vehemently, although Justice Sotomayor's dissenting opinion [...]

 

https://babylonbee.com/news/supreme-court-votes-6-3-that-biden-never-had-a-six-handicap