Episodios
-
In the latest developments from the US Supreme Court, a significant decision was made on January 9, 2025, that has garnered considerable attention. The Supreme Court cleared the way for President-elect Donald Trump's criminal sentencing to proceed in his New York hush money case. Trump had been convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records to hide reimbursements made to adult film star Stormy Daniels.
The court's decision was made through a brief, unsigned order issued in the evening, where the justices rejected Trump's plea to halt the sentencing. This ruling was not unanimous; four conservative justices – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh – indicated they would have granted Trump's request. However, the necessary five votes were not achieved, as Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the three liberal justices in allowing the sentencing to proceed.
The court reasoned that Trump's complaints about the use of evidence could be addressed on appeal and noted that the trial court intended to impose a sentence of 'unconditional discharge' after a brief virtual hearing, which would impose a relatively insubstantial burden on Trump's responsibilities as President-elect.
Additionally, there has been controversy surrounding Justice Samuel Alito, who had a conversation with Trump about one of Alito's former law clerks seeking a job in the new administration. This has led to calls from Rep. Jamie Raskin for Alito to recuse himself to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
As of now, there are no major oral arguments or decisions from the Supreme Court in the last few days that have been as pivotal as this sentencing ruling. However, the court continues to operate with its regular schedule, addressing various legal issues as they arise.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on Supreme Court news. -
As we look at the latest developments from the US Supreme Court, several key issues and upcoming cases are garnering significant attention. Chief Justice John Roberts has recently expressed concerns about the growing disregard for the Supreme Court, emphasizing the importance of maintaining judicial independence and ensuring that court decisions are honored regardless of their political implications.
Looking ahead to 2025, the Supreme Court has a robust docket with several high-stakes cases that could have significant political and social implications. One of the most closely watched cases involves a challenge to a proposed ban on TikTok, which was signed into law by President Joe Biden due to national security concerns related to the app's ties to China. The Court will decide whether the app should be banned unless it is sold to a U.S. company.
Another critical case on the horizon involves the constitutionality of a Tennessee law that bans transgender surgeries and hormone treatments for minors. This decision could set a precedent for similar laws in other states, making it a highly anticipated and contentious issue.
These cases highlight the Court's role in addressing complex and divisive issues, and Chief Justice Roberts' warning underscores the need for respect and adherence to the Court's rulings, regardless of public or political sentiment.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on the US Supreme Court. -
¿Faltan episodios?
-
In the latest developments from the US Supreme Court, a significant and contentious case involving former President Donald Trump has been making headlines. On January 3, 2025, the New York trial court denied Trump’s motion to dismiss a criminal case based on claims of Presidential immunity, and subsequently set a date for criminal sentencing just a week later, on January 10, 2025. This move was criticized for violating standard practice, due process, and New York criminal law, especially given that it was scheduled just ten days before Trump’s inauguration.
Trump promptly filed an interlocutory appeal and notified the trial court that the proceedings were automatically stayed pending the appeal. However, the New York courts have refused to honor this stay, leading Trump to file an emergency application with the Supreme Court to impose an immediate stay on the criminal proceedings. The application argues that the trial court lacks authority to impose sentence or conduct further criminal proceedings until the resolution of Trump’s appeal, which raises substantial claims of Presidential immunity.
This case is particularly noteworthy given a recent Supreme Court ruling from July 2024, where the Court decided that presidents have immunity for official actions taken while in office, although this does not extend to absolute immunity. The Court ruled that the president is immune from official acts, including those at the outermost perimeter of their official duties, and that the government may not inquire into the president’s motives for these actions.
In other news, the Supreme Court is also dealing with a separate high-profile issue related to the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). The government filed an emergency application to stay a nationwide preliminary injunction against the CTA, which was ordered by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has requested that respondents submit their response to the government’s application by January 10, 2025. The outcome of this application is uncertain but will be closely watched as it coincides with other ongoing constitutional challenges in various appellate courts.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don’t forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on key Supreme Court developments. -
Hello and welcome to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. I'm Jason, your go-to source for the latest developments from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Recently, one of the most significant and contentious cases involves President-elect Donald Trump, who has appealed to the Supreme Court to block his sentencing in a New York criminal hush money case. Trump's lawyers argue that sentencing him just before his inauguration would disrupt national security and the operations of the federal government. They also claim that as President-elect, Trump should be entitled to the same immunity as a sitting president, which could expand the breadth of presidential authority. The Supreme Court has requested a response from prosecutors in New York, indicating the high stakes and urgency of this matter.
In another major development, the Supreme Court issued a decision on January 17, 2025, regarding the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. This law targets apps controlled by foreign adversaries, specifically China, and bans their use in the U.S. unless their operations are severed from Chinese control. The Court upheld this law, finding it to be content-neutral and justified by the government's interest in preventing the collection of sensitive data by China. Justices Sotomayor and Gorsuch concurred in the judgment, with Sotomayor noting that the First Amendment clearly applies to this Act.
These decisions highlight the Supreme Court's active role in addressing critical issues that intersect national security, presidential immunity, and First Amendment rights.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court. -
In recent developments, the US Supreme Court has been active on several fronts. One of the most significant updates involves the Court's decision to review a case related to the establishment of the nation's first religious charter school. The Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in the cases of *Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond* and *St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond*, which stem from a ruling by the Oklahoma Supreme Court. This ruling rejected a Catholic online school's bid to become a charter school, citing violations of state law, the Oklahoma Constitution, and the U.S. Constitution. The school argues that this decision unconstitutionally punishes the free exercise of religion by disqualifying it from government aid. The Court has fast-tracked the briefing schedule for these cases, with arguments set for the last week of April and a decision expected by late June or early July.
Another notable decision came in the case of *TikTok Inc. v. Garland*, where the Supreme Court upheld a federal law that prohibits companies in the U.S. from providing services to, distributing, maintaining, or updating TikTok unless its U.S. operations are severed from Chinese control. The Court found that the law, part of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, is content-neutral and satisfies intermediate scrutiny under the First Amendment, as it aims to prevent China from collecting sensitive data from U.S. users.
Additionally, the Supreme Court lifted a preliminary injunction that had blocked the enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) in the case of *Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., et al. v. Garland, et al*. This decision reinstates the requirement for 32 million small businesses to report beneficial ownership information, despite ongoing litigation over the constitutionality of the reporting requirements.
These decisions highlight the Supreme Court's active role in addressing a range of critical issues, from religious freedom and education to national security and business regulations.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on key Supreme Court cases and decisions. -
In the latest developments from the US Supreme Court, several significant events and decisions have captured attention. One of the most notable recent actions involves President-elect Donald Trump's legal battles. On January 9, 2025, the Supreme Court cleared the way for Trump's criminal sentencing to proceed in his New York hush money case, despite his plea to halt the sentencing. Trump was convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records to hide reimbursements made to adult film star Stormy Daniels. The court's decision was divided, with four conservative justices indicating they would have granted Trump's request, but ultimately, the sentencing was allowed to move forward.
Another critical issue before the Supreme Court is the case involving TikTok. President Trump, through an amicus brief, has requested a stay on the statutory deadline for ByteDance to divest its ownership of TikTok. This deadline, set for January 19, 2025, is just a day before Trump is scheduled to assume office. Trump's argument is that the expedited timeline interferes with his ability to manage foreign policy and pursue a resolution that balances national security with the protection of First Amendment rights. The court is considering whether to grant this stay to allow more time for a negotiated resolution.
On January 23, 2025, the Supreme Court made a significant decision regarding the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). The court issued a stay on a nationwide preliminary injunction that had blocked the enforcement of the CTA, allowing the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) to once again enforce the act. This decision does not address the constitutionality of the CTA but rather the propriety of the universal preliminary injunction.
These developments highlight the active and complex landscape of the US Supreme Court, with ongoing cases touching on constitutional questions, corporate transparency, and high-profile legal battles involving public figures.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS news Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on the US Supreme Court. -
As of the latest updates, the US Supreme Court has been engaged in several significant activities and decisions. On Tuesday, January 21, the Court held oral arguments in two notable cases: *Food and Drug Administration v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co.* and *McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corporation*. These cases are part of the Court's ongoing schedule of hearings on various critical issues.
In other recent developments, the Supreme Court has made decisions on several high-profile matters. The Court has revived the case of a death row inmate who claims she was subjected to inappropriate treatment, including being 'sex-shamed' during her trial. This decision underscores the Court's continued scrutiny of procedural fairness in capital punishment cases.
Additionally, the Supreme Court has declined to intervene in a Pennsylvania mail-in ballot dispute, choosing not to hear the case. This decision reflects the Court's selective approach to which cases it decides to take up, particularly those involving state-level electoral issues.
On the administrative front, there has been significant activity related to pending cases involving high-profile figures. For instance, former President Donald Trump has filed an emergency stay application with the Supreme Court to halt criminal proceedings against him in a New York trial court. Trump's application argues that the trial court lacks authority to impose sentence or conduct further proceedings while his interlocutory appeal, which raises claims of Presidential immunity, is pending.
In summary, the Supreme Court continues to address a wide range of critical legal issues, from regulatory challenges and electoral disputes to high-stakes criminal cases involving prominent figures. These developments highlight the Court's active role in shaping the legal landscape of the United States.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on the US Supreme Court. -
In the latest developments from the US Supreme Court, several significant events have captured attention. One of the most noteworthy cases is *TikTok v. Garland*, which is set to be argued before the Supreme Court on January 10, 2025. This case revolves around the constitutionality of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, specifically whether it violates the First Amendment as applied to TikTok. The court's decision will determine if a proposed ban on the app will take effect on January 19, 2025.
In another major development, the Supreme Court recently denied a request by Donald Trump to delay his sentencing in a criminal case related to hush money payments. Trump, who is scheduled to be inaugurated as President on January 20, had sought to halt the sentencing, but the court narrowly rejected his appeal. This decision clears the way for Trump's sentencing to proceed on January 10, despite his arguments for presidential immunity.
The Supreme Court's ruling on Trump's case was closely divided, with four justices supporting his request for a delay and the remaining five justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, denying the relief. This decision underscores the ongoing legal challenges Trump faces as he prepares to take office.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on key Supreme Court cases and decisions. -
Hello and welcome to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. I'm Jason, your reporter for the latest updates from the US Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court is gearing up for a busy January argument session, which began on January 13 and will continue until January 22. One of the major cases on the docket is *Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton*, scheduled for January 15. This case involves a challenge to a Texas law that requires websites to verify the age of their users if at least one-third of their content is deemed “harmful to minors,” such as pornography. The challengers argue that this law violates the First Amendment by imposing a burden on adults' access to such content, and they are pushing for a more stringent test, known as strict scrutiny, to be applied instead of the rational basis review used by the lower court.
Another significant case is *TikTok v. Garland*, which was argued on January 10. This case revolves around a proposed ban on the TikTok app under the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. The Supreme Court is deciding whether this ban violates the First Amendment, given concerns about national security and data collection by China. If the ban is upheld, it could lead to Apple and Google removing TikTok from their app stores by January 19, although users who have already downloaded the app would still have access to its content, albeit without ongoing technical support.
In addition to these high-profile cases, the Supreme Court is addressing several other important issues during this argument session. These include questions about sentence reductions under the First Step Act in cases like *Hewitt v. United States* and *Duffey v. United States*, and a case involving the Americans with Disabilities Act, *Stanley v. City of Sanford*, which focuses on whether a former employee can sue over discrimination in benefits earned during employment.
As the Supreme Court delves into these complex legal matters, it's clear that the coming weeks will be pivotal for several key areas of law, from free speech and national security to criminal justice and disability rights.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on the US Supreme Court. -
As of the latest updates, the US Supreme Court has been active with several significant developments. On January 15, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a notable decision in the case of E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera. This ruling involves the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the obligations of employers to pay their employees a minimum wage. The court's opinion, delivered by Justice Kavanaugh, addresses the standards of proof and the application of the Fair Labor Standards Act, highlighting the importance of heightened standards of proof in certain cases, particularly those involving significant deprivations of liberty.
In addition to this decision, the Supreme Court has several pending cases that are garnering attention. One such case is Hewitt v. United States, which was argued on January 13, 2025. This case delves into whether the sentencing reduction provisions of the First Step Act apply to defendants who were originally sentenced before the act's enactment but were later resentenced after its enactment.
Another case argued recently is Stanley v. City of Sanford, also on January 13, 2025. This case explores whether a former employee, who was qualified to perform her job and earned post-employment benefits, loses her right to sue over discrimination related to those benefits simply because she no longer holds the job, under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
On January 14, 2025, the court heard arguments in Thompson v. United States, a case that examines whether making a misleading but not false statement can be considered a violation of the law prohibiting false statements to influence financial institutions and federal agencies.
Looking ahead, the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in several high-profile cases, including TikTok, Inc. v. Garland on January 10, 2025, which questions whether the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act violates the First Amendment as applied to TikTok.
These developments highlight the ongoing and complex legal issues being addressed by the Supreme Court, reflecting the dynamic and critical role the court plays in shaping the country's legal landscape.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis of Supreme Court news. -
In the latest developments from the US Supreme Court, a significant case has been at the forefront: *TikTok v. Garland*. On January 10, 2025, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in this case, which revolves around the constitutionality of a proposed ban on the TikTok app in the United States.
TikTok's legal team argued that the ban, mandated by the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, violates the First Amendment rights of the app's 170 million American users. They contended that the ban would undercut the free speech of these users. On the other hand, the Justice Department argued that TikTok poses a national security risk, as it could be used by China to manipulate or gather data on Americans.
The D.C. Court of Appeals had previously denied TikTok's request to delay the ban, which is set to go into effect on January 19, 2025, unless the Supreme Court intervenes. The appeals court ruled that national security concerns outweighed any First Amendment arguments and that the act did not contravene the First Amendment.
If the ban is implemented, lawmakers have indicated that Apple and Google will be required to remove TikTok from their app stores. While users who have already downloaded the app will still have access to its content, the lack of ongoing technical support will eventually render the app unusable.
This case highlights a critical clash between free expression in the digital age and national security concerns, and the Supreme Court's decision will have far-reaching implications for both TikTok and the broader landscape of social media in the United States.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS news Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and analysis on key Supreme Court cases and decisions. -
As we approach the new year, the US Supreme Court is gearing up for a significant January argument session. One of the major headlines involves a critical First Amendment case, *Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton*, scheduled for January 15, 2025. This case revolves around a Texas law that mandates websites to verify the age of their users if at least one-third of their content is deemed “harmful to minors,” such as pornography. The challengers argue that this law violates the First Amendment by imposing a burden on adults' access to such content. The Supreme Court will delve into the appropriate legal test to determine the constitutionality of this law, with the lower court having used a "rational basis" review, while the challengers advocate for the more stringent "strict scrutiny" test.
In addition to this First Amendment case, the January argument session will address several other important issues. On January 13, the court will hear arguments in *Hewitt v. United States* and *Duffey v. United States*, consolidated into one hour of oral argument. These cases question whether sentence reductions under the First Step Act apply to defendants who were originally sentenced before the law's enactment but were later resentenced after it took effect.
Also on January 13, the court will consider *Stanley v. City of Sanford*, which involves a former employee's right to sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act regarding discrimination in the provision of benefits she earned while employed.
Other notable cases in the January session include considerations of federal laws prohibiting false statements to influence financial institutions and claims under the Fourth Amendment related to excessive force by police.
While these cases are set to be argued in the coming weeks, there has been no recent significant news on new decisions from the Supreme Court in the last few days, as the court is currently in its winter recess.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on Supreme Court news. -
As we kick off the new year, the US Supreme Court is gearing up for a significant January argument session. One of the major headlines revolves around the case of *Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton*, scheduled for January 15, 2025. This case involves a challenge to a Texas law that mandates websites to verify the age of their users if at least one-third of their content is deemed “harmful to minors,” such as pornography. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld this law, but the challengers argue that it violates the First Amendment by imposing a burden on adults' access to such content. The Supreme Court will delve into the appropriate standard of review for this law, with the challengers advocating for a more stringent test known as strict scrutiny.
In addition to this First Amendment case, the January argument session will address several other critical issues. On January 13, the court will hear *Hewitt v. United States* and *Duffey v. United States*, consolidated cases that question whether sentence reductions under the First Step Act apply to defendants who were originally sentenced before the law was enacted but were later resentenced after its enactment. The same day, the court will also consider *Stanley v. City of Sanford*, which pertains to whether a former employee loses her right to sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act for discrimination in benefits earned during her employment.
Other notable cases include *Thompson v. United States* on January 14, which examines whether a federal law prohibiting false statements to influence financial institutions also covers misleading but not false statements. The court will also hear *Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services* on the same day, focusing on whether a district court can reopen a case that has been voluntarily dismissed.
Later in the month, on January 21, the court will tackle *FDA v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co.*, a case that explores whether a manufacturer can file a petition for review in a circuit where it does not reside or have its principal place of business. Another significant case, *Barnes v. Felix*, scheduled for January 22, will determine whether courts should use the “moment of the threat” doctrine to assess the reasonableness of a police officer’s actions in claims of excessive force under the Fourth Amendment.
In other news, the Biden administration has recently requested the Supreme Court to allow the enforcement of an anti-money-laundering law, highlighting ongoing efforts to address financial crimes.
Retired US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is also set to sit with an appeals court in January, marking a notable return to judicial duties for the former justice.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on the US Supreme Court. -
As we step into the new year, the US Supreme Court is gearing up for a series of significant cases that will shape the legal landscape of the country. One of the most anticipated cases is *Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton*, scheduled for oral arguments on January 15, 2025. This case revolves around a Texas law that mandates age verification for websites containing content deemed "harmful to minors," such as pornography. The law, upheld by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, has sparked intense debate over First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court will delve into whether the law's implementation violates adults' access to protected speech and which standard of review should be applied – either the less stringent "rational basis" review or the more rigorous "strict scrutiny."
In addition to this, the Supreme Court has a packed January argument session. On January 13, the court will hear *Hewitt v. United States*, a case that questions whether sentence reductions under the First Step Act apply to defendants who were originally sentenced before the law's enactment but were later resentenced. The same day, the court will also consider *Stanley v. City of Sanford*, which involves a former employee's right to sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
On January 14, the court will address *Thompson v. United States*, focusing on whether a federal law prohibiting false statements to influence financial institutions also covers statements that are misleading but not false. Another case, *Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services*, will examine the jurisdiction of a district court to reopen a voluntarily dismissed case.
The Supreme Court is also set to tackle other critical issues, including environmental regulations and police use of force. The case of *Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County*, heard in December, will determine the extent of environmental constraints on federal agency actions.
Furthermore, the court's January session includes cases like *FDA v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co.* and *McLaughlin Chiropractic v. McKesson Corp.*, which will explore jurisdictional and regulatory issues related to product manufacturers and telecommunications.
In the broader context, the Supreme Court has been making significant rulings in recent times, including decisions on abortion, presidential immunity, and the weakening of federal rule-making power through the overturning of Chevron deference.
As we move forward into 2025, these cases promise to have far-reaching implications for various aspects of American law and society.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on the US Supreme Court. -
As we enter the new year, the US Supreme Court is gearing up for a significant January argument session, which begins on January 13 and runs through January 22. One of the most anticipated cases is *Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton*, scheduled for January 15. This case involves a challenge to a Texas law that mandates websites to verify the age of their users if at least one-third of their content is deemed “harmful to minors,” such as pornography. The challengers argue that this law violates the First Amendment by imposing a burden on adults' access to protected speech, and they contend that the court should apply a stricter scrutiny test rather than the rational basis review used by the 5th Circuit.
Other notable cases in the January session include *Hewitt v. United States* and *Duffey v. United States*, which will be consolidated for one hour of oral argument on January 13. These cases address whether sentence reductions under the First Step Act apply to defendants who were originally sentenced before the law's enactment but were later resentenced after it took effect.
On January 14, the court will hear *Thompson v. United States*, which questions whether a federal law prohibiting false statements to influence financial institutions and federal agencies also applies to statements that are misleading but not false. Another case on the same day, *Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services*, will determine whether a district court can reopen a case that has been voluntarily dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41.
Additionally, the Supreme Court is set to hear *TikTok, Inc. v. Garland* on January 10, which involves the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act and its potential violation of the First Amendment as applied to TikTok.
In terms of recent developments, President Trump has filed an amicus brief in the TikTok case, urging the court to stay the statutory deadline to allow his incoming administration to pursue a negotiated resolution. This move highlights the significant First Amendment concerns and national security issues at play.
As the Supreme Court delves into these complex and contentious cases, it is clear that the coming weeks will be pivotal in shaping legal precedents and addressing critical constitutional questions.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on the US Supreme Court. -
As we approach the end of 2024, the US Supreme Court has been at the center of several significant developments and decisions. One of the most recent and intriguing events involves President-elect Trump's unexpected intervention in the fate of the social media platform TikTok. Trump, still in his capacity as President-elect, has written a letter to the Supreme Court requesting that they delay any ruling on TikTok to allow him time to broker a deal that could result in the sale of the app. This move has surprised many legal observers, given that Trump currently lacks the legal authority to make such a request.
On the judicial front, the Supreme Court has made several major decisions this year. One notable ruling was on the issue of presidential immunity, where the court clarified that the President enjoys no immunity for unofficial acts and is not above the law, although Congress cannot criminalize the President's conduct in carrying out executive branch responsibilities. This decision has significant implications, especially as Trump prepares to take office.
Another landmark decision saw the Supreme Court overturn the 40-year-old Chevron deference doctrine, which had instructed lower courts to defer to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous laws. This change gives courts more power to interpret statutes independently, even if agencies disagree.
In the realm of civil rights, the Supreme Court has also made headlines by keeping preliminary injunctions in place that prevent the Biden-Harris administration from implementing a new rule that would have expanded the definition of sex discrimination under Title IX to include sexual orientation and gender identity. The court ruled that the administration had not adequately identified which provisions of the rule could remain in effect independently of the enjoined definitional provision.
Additionally, the court has been involved in several high-profile cases related to the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot. In one such case, the Supreme Court narrowed the interpretation of a federal statute that imposes criminal liability for obstructing official proceedings, ruling that the government had stretched the law too far in its application.
As the year comes to a close, these decisions and interventions highlight the ongoing and profound impact of the Supreme Court on various aspects of American law and society.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on Supreme Court news. -
As we track the latest developments from the US Supreme Court, several significant cases and events have captured attention recently.
The Supreme Court has been gearing up for its December argument session, which includes some highly contentious cases. One of the most notable is *United States v. Skrmetti*, scheduled for December 4, where the court will consider a challenge to Tennessee's ban on puberty blockers and hormone therapy for transgender minors. This case has drawn considerable interest as it involves a federal judge's ruling that the Tennessee law violates the Constitution by allowing similar treatments for young people wishing to conform to the sex they were assigned at birth, but a federal appeals court reversed this decision.
In addition to the transgender rights case, the December session will also include arguments on other critical issues. For instance, *FDA v. Wages and White Lion Investments* on December 2 will address a challenge to the FDA's efforts to bar flavored e-cigarettes that are likely to appeal to young people. Another case, *Hungary v. Simon* on December 3, involves a dispute over the seizure of property from Holocaust survivors by the Hungarian government and the scope of the “expropriation” exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
On the emergency docket, the Supreme Court has recently denied several significant applications. For example, the court denied an emergency application for a stay of execution in *Collings v. Vandergriff*, involving Christopher Collings, and another in *Moore v. Stirling*, concerning Richard Bernard Moore, who was the last man on South Carolina’s death row convicted and sentenced by an all-white jury. These decisions reflect the ongoing scrutiny and debate surrounding capital punishment and racial bias in the justice system.
The court has also been involved in election-related disputes, such as *Republican National Committee v. Genser*, where the court denied a stay of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision requiring election officials to count provisional ballots from voters whose mail-in ballots were deemed invalid.
As the Supreme Court navigates these complex and politically charged cases, it continues to face criticism and calls for reform. Recent rulings, including those on gun rights, abortion, and presidential immunity, have sparked significant public and congressional scrutiny. President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris have advocated for reforms such as 18-year term limits for justices and an enforceable code of ethics.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. For the latest updates and in-depth analysis, be sure to subscribe to our channel. -
As of the latest updates, the US Supreme Court is gearing up for its December argument session, which includes several high-profile cases. One of the most notable cases is *United States v. Skrmetti*, scheduled for December 4, where the court will consider a challenge to Tennessee's ban on puberty blockers and hormone therapy for transgender minors. This case has garnered significant attention as it involves a federal judge's ruling that the Tennessee law violates the Constitution by allowing similar treatments for young people wishing to conform to the sex they were assigned at birth, a decision later reversed by a federal appeals court.
In addition to this, the December argument session will also feature other important cases, such as *FDA v. Wages and White Lion Investments* on December 2, which involves a challenge to the FDA's denials of applications to market new flavored e-cigarettes. Another significant case is *Hungary v. Simon* on December 3, where the court will examine the scope of the “expropriation” exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act in a case brought by families of Holocaust survivors seeking to recover property seized by Hungary.
On the emergency docket front, the Supreme Court has recently denied several emergency applications. For instance, the court denied an emergency application for a stay of execution in the case of *Moore v. Stirling* on October 31, which involved Richard Bernard Moore, the last man on South Carolina’s death row convicted and sentenced by an all-white jury. Similar denials were made in cases such as *Hamilton v. U.S.* on December 10, where the court refused to stay the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit’s mandate, and *Collings v. Vandergriff* on December 2, where the court denied a stay of execution.
These developments highlight the ongoing and complex nature of the cases being handled by the Supreme Court, reflecting a broad range of legal and constitutional issues.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on Supreme Court news. -
As we track the latest developments from the US Supreme Court, several significant events and decisions have captured attention in recent days.
The Supreme Court has been busy with emergency applications, many of which involve capital punishment cases. For instance, the Court denied an emergency application for a stay of execution in the case of Christopher Collings, despite pending review of similar due process concerns in another case, _Glossip v. Oklahoma_[1].
In another notable case, the Court denied an emergency application to stay the execution of Richard Bernard Moore, who argued that his trial was marred by the unconstitutional striking of Black jurors due to their race[1].
On the administrative law front, the Court's previous term saw a landmark decision that could have far-reaching implications. The Court ruled that the SEC's use of its own Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) to adjudicate enforcement actions violated the Constitution, specifically the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial and the non-delegation doctrine. This decision challenges the established practice of using ALJs and limits Congress's ability to delegate legislative power to agencies without clear guidelines[3].
Looking ahead to the 2024-25 term, the Supreme Court has added several significant cases to its docket. One of these is _Garland v. VanDerStok_, which involves a nationwide ban upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and will be argued on October 8, 2024. Another key case is _Glossip v. Oklahoma_, which raises questions about the constitutionality of certain execution methods and the concealment of key witness information by prosecutors[4].
Additionally, the Court will consider cases such as _Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas_, which addresses the licensing of private companies to store spent nuclear fuel, and _Food and Drug Administration v. Wages and White Lion Investments_, which deals with the marketing of new e-cigarette products[4].
These cases and decisions highlight the ongoing and future impact of the Supreme Court on various aspects of American law and society.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on the US Supreme Court. -
As we track the latest developments from the US Supreme Court, several key cases and decisions have garnered significant attention in recent days.
The Supreme Court has been busy with its 2024-25 term, which began on October 7, 2024. One of the high-profile cases scheduled for this term is *Garland v. VanDerStok*, which was argued on October 8. This case involves a challenge to a nationwide ban, with the Biden administration seeking review after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ban.
Another notable case is *Glossip v. Oklahoma*, set for oral arguments on October 9. This case revolves around a death row inmate in Oklahoma who is seeking a new trial due to allegations that prosecutors concealed evidence about the key witness's psychiatric care.
The Court is also set to address several other significant issues, including the regulation of "ghost guns" by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, and the constitutionality of a Tennessee law prohibiting gender-affirming healthcare for transgender youth.
In terms of upcoming arguments, on December 2, the Court will hear *FDA v. Wages and White Lion Investments*, which concerns whether a Circuit Court of Appeals erred in setting aside an FDA order preventing the marketing of new e-cigarette products. Additionally, *United States v. Miller* will be argued on the same day, focusing on whether a bankruptcy trustee can avoid a debtor’s tax payment to the United States under specific bankruptcy laws.
On the horizon, *TikTok, Inc. v. Garland* is scheduled for December 18, where the Court will consider whether the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, as applied to TikTok, violates the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court has also made headlines recently by declining to hear certain cases, such as a challenge to California’s strict vehicle emissions rules and a case involving Peter Navarro’s fight to keep emails from the first Trump administration.
As the term progresses, the Court is expected to tackle a wide range of critical issues, from administrative law and environmental policy to First Amendment rights and criminal justice.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on the US Supreme Court. - Mostrar más
