Supreme Court (US)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Case in Texas Could Shed More Light on Invocation of Alien Enemies Act

      by

      Immigration lawyers are reacting to the Supreme Court’s ruling, which declared that any legal challenges to the Trump administration’s plan to use a wartime statute to deport a group of Venezuelan migrants have to be filed where the men are being held.And as they scrambled to adjust on Tuesday, their efforts could be guided by a similar case that is underway in Federal District Court in Brownsville, Texas. It was filed last month by Daniel Zacarias Matos, a Venezuelan migrant who claimed that the administration tried to deport him — without a hearing or an order of removal — under President Trump’s recent proclamation invoking the wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act.In mid-March, Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr., who is handling the case, issued an order stopping Mr. Zacarias Matos from being deported until he could look deeper into the matter. His lawyers and lawyers for the Justice Department are expected to file dueling court papers this month laying out the details of what happened.While the facts in Mr. Zacarias Matos’s case do not line up exactly with those in the cases of the Venezuelan migrants directly affected by the Supreme Court’s ruling, they could shed light on some of those proceedings as they start to move forward, most likely one by one.According to court papers, Mr. Zacarias Matos came to the United States with his 8-year-old daughter in December 2023, seeking asylum from Venezuela. Federal immigration agents took him into custody in October at the El Paso County Jail after he was arrested on charges of violating the terms of his probation on two, now-dismissed misdemeanor charges, court papers show.Early last month, the papers say, Mr. Zacarias Matos was sent to the El Valle Detention Center in Raymondville, Texas, where the administration was holding scores of Venezuelan migrants they were planning to deport to a prison in El Salvador under the expansive powers of the Alien Enemies Act.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Read the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Venezuelan Migrants

      by

      Cite as: 604 U. S.
      (2025)
      9
      SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting
      whether its March 15 deportations complied with the Dis-
      trict Court’s orders, it simultaneously sought permission to
      resume summary deportations under the Proclamation.
      The District Court, first, denied the Government’s motion
      to vacate its temporary restraining order, rejecting the as-
      sertion that “the President’s authority and discretion under
      the [Alien Enemies Act] is not a proper subject for judicial
      scrutiny.” App. to BIO 71a. At the very least, the District
      Court concluded, the plaintiffs were “likely to succeed” on
      their claim that, “before they may be deported, they are en-
      titled to individualized hearings to determine whether the
      Act applies to them at all.” 2025 WL 890401, *2. The D. C.
      Circuit, too, denied the Government a requested stay and
      kept in place the District Court’s pause on deportations un-
      der the Alien Enemies Act pending further proceedings.
      2025 WL 914682, *1 (per curiam) (Mar. 26, 2025).
      It is only this Court that sees reason to vacate, for the
      second time this week, a temporary restraining order
      standing “on its last legs.” Department of Education, 604
      U. S., at (JACKSON, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 1). Not
      content to wait until tomorrow, when the District Court will
      have a chance to consider full preliminary injunction brief-
      ing at a scheduled hearing, this Court intervenes to relieve
      the Government of its obligation under the order.
      II
      Begin with that upon which all nine Members of this
      Court agree. The Court’s order today dictates, in no uncer-
      tain terms, that “individual[s] subject to detention and re-
      moval under the [Alien Enemies Act are] entitled to judicial
      review’ as to ‘questions of interpretation and constitution-
      ality’ of the Act as well as whether he or she ‘is in fact an
      alien enemy fourteen years of age or older.”” Ante, at 2
      (quoting Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U. S. 160, 163–164, 172,
      n. 17 (1948)). Therefore, under today’s order, courts below More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme Court Rules Against Makers of Flavored Vapes Popular With Teens

      by

      The justices said the Food and Drug Administration had acted lawfully in rejecting applications from makers of flavored liquids used in e-cigarettes.The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the Food and Drug Administration had acted lawfully in rejecting applications from two manufacturers of flavored liquids used in e-cigarettes with names like Jimmy the Juice Man Peachy Strawberry, Signature Series Mom’s Pistachio and Suicide Bunny Mother’s Milk and Cookies.In a unanimous decision written by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., the justices upheld an F.D.A. order that prohibited retailers from marketing flavored tobacco products. The court rejected claims that the agency had unfairly switched its requirements during the application process.Justice Alito wrote that the agency’s denials of the applications were “sufficiently consistent” with agency guidance on tobacco regulations. The justices rejected a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that the agency had acted arbitrarily and capriciously, finding that the F.D.A. had not tried to change the rules in the middle of the approval process.A 2009 law, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, requires makers of new tobacco products to obtain authorization from the F.D.A. According to the law, the manufacturers’ applications must demonstrate that their products are “appropriate for the protection of the public health.”The agency has denied many applications under the law, including the two at issue in the case before the justices, saying the flavored liquids presented a “known and substantial risk to youth.”The appeals court ruled last year that the agency had changed the rules in the middle of the application process, accusing it of “regulatory switcheroos” that sent the companies “on a wild-goose chase.” More formally, the court said the agency’s actions had been arbitrary and capricious.In asking the Supreme Court to hear the case, Food and Drug Administration v. Wages and White Lion Investments, No. 23-1038, the agency’s lawyers cited another appeals court that had reached the opposite conclusion. The Fifth Circuit’s decision “has far-reaching consequences for public health and threatens to undermine the Tobacco Control Act’s central objective of ‘ensuring that another generation of Americans does not become addicted to nicotine and tobacco products,’” they wrote, quoting from the other appeals court’s decision. More

    • 75 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Deportation Fight Reaches Supreme Court

      by

      The Trump administration asked the justices to allow it to use a wartime law to continue deportations of Venezuelans with little or no due process.The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Friday to allow it to use a rarely invoked wartime law to continue to deport Venezuelans with little to no due process.The emergency application arrived at the court after a federal appeals court kept in place a temporary block on the deportations. In its application to the Supreme Court, lawyers for the administration argued that the matter was too urgent to wait for the case to wind its way through the lower courts.In the government’s application, acting Solicitor General Sarah M. Harris said the case presented “fundamental questions about who decides how to conduct sensitive national-security-related operations in this country.”“The Constitution supplies a clear answer: the president,” Ms. Harris wrote. “The Republic cannot afford a different choice.”The case will offer a major early test for how the nation’s highest court will confront President Trump’s aggressive efforts to deport of millions of migrants and his hostile posture toward the courts. Mr. Trump has called for impeaching a lower-court judge who paused his deportations.The case hinges on the legality of an executive order signed by Mr. Trump that invokes the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The order uses the law to target people believed to be Venezuelan gang members in the United States.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme Court Upholds Biden Administration’s Limits on ‘Ghost Guns’

      by

      The administration had tightened regulations on kits that can be easily assembled into nearly untraceable firearms.The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld federal restrictions aimed at curtailing access to kits that can be easily assembled into homemade, nearly untraceable firearms.In a 7-to-2 decision, written by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, one of the court’s conservatives, the justices left in place requirements enacted during the Biden administration as part of a broader effort to combat gun violence by placing restrictions on so-called ghost guns.The ruling in favor of gun regulations is a departure for the court, which has shown itself to be skeptical both of administrative agency power and of gun regulations. Two conservative justices — Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas — each filed dissents.The Biden administration enacted rules in 2022 tightening access to the weapons kits, after law enforcement agencies reported that ghost guns were exploding in popularity and being used to commit serious crimes.The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives estimated that use of the gun components and kits in crime increased tenfold in the six years before the rules were adopted.Among the regulations: requiring vendors and gun makers to be licensed to sell the kits, mandating serial numbers on the components so the guns could be tracked and adding background checks for would-be buyers.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Judge Orders U.S.A.I.D. and State Dept. to Pay Funds ‘Unlawfully’ Withheld

      by

      A federal judge barred the Trump administration on Monday from “unlawfully impounding congressionally appropriated foreign aid funds” that the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development owed to grant recipients and contractors, requiring it to pay for work completed in the first several weeks of President Trump’s term.The ruling, handed down by Judge Amir H. Ali of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, was the latest step in a winding dispute over foreign aid payments since Mr. Trump has tried to vastly shrink the nation’s foreign assistance. While forcing the administration to pay for work completed before Feb. 13, Judge Ali said the limits of the case prevented him from ordering payments on future work or restoring canceled contracts.But he left no doubt that he believed that the administration had exceeded its authority in trying to block funding, a warning that could echo through a deluge of lawsuits over Mr. Trump’s efforts to unilaterally halt spending.“Here, the executive has unilaterally deemed that funds Congress appropriated for foreign aid will not be spent,” he wrote. “The executive not only claims his constitutional authority to determine how to spend appropriated funds, but usurps Congress’s exclusive authority to dictate whether the funds should be spent in the first place.”The order on Monday prohibited the State Department and U.S.A.I.D. from implementing much of a Jan. 24 memorandum outlining plans to reorient and shrink U.S. foreign aid. It further required them to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars still owed to a constellation of groups for work completed before Feb. 13, as Judge Ali had ordered last month.The order dealt with a broad freeze on foreign aid funding that Mr. Trump put into effect the day he took office. It stopped short of the much more significant step of invalidating the Trump administration’s decision to cancel thousands of contracts through what it described as an expedited line-by-line review, after the lawsuit was already underway. Judge Ali found that the court was restrained to addressing the specific harms laid out in the lawsuit, not “supervision of discrete or ongoing executive decisions.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Law Banning Conversion Therapy

      by

      Colorado, like more than 20 other states, bars licensed therapists from trying to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of minors in their care.The Supreme Court said on Monday that it will hear a First Amendment challenge to a Colorado law banning professional counseling services engaged in conversion therapy intended to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation.More than 20 states have similar laws, which are supported by leading medical groups. Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor, challenged the constitutionality of the Colorado law in federal court, saying it violated her rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion.The challenged law prohibits licensed therapists in Colorado from performing conversion therapy, which it defines to include efforts “to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.” That includes trying “to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”The law, adopted in 2019, allow treatments that provide “acceptance, support and understanding.” It exempts therapists “engaged in the practice of religious ministry.”Ms. Chiles’s lawyers told the justices in her petition seeking review that as “a practicing Christian, Chiles believes that people flourish when they live consistently with God’s design, including their biological sex.”In her lawsuit, Ms. Chiles said she wanted to help her clients achieve their goals, which can include “seeking to reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change sexual behaviors or grow in the experience of harmony with one’s physical body.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme Court Rejects Trump’s Bid to Freeze Foreign Aid

      by

      The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected President Trump’s emergency request to freeze nearly $2 billion in foreign aid as part of his efforts to slash government spending.The court’s brief order was unsigned, which is typical when the justices act on emergency applications. It said only that the trial judge, who had ordered the government to resume payments, “should clarify what obligations the government must fulfill.”But the ruling is one of the court’s first moves in response to the flurry of litigation filed in response to President Trump’s efforts to dramatically reshape government. The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining the three liberal members to form a majority.Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the four dissenting justices, said the majority had gone profoundly astray.“Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) $2 billion taxpayer dollars? “ he asked. “The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No,’ but a majority of this court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned.”The administration halted the aid on Jan. 20, President Trump’s first day in office. Recipients and other nonprofit groups filed two lawsuits challenging the freeze as an unconstitutional exercise of presidential power that thwarted congressional appropriations for the U.S. Agency for International Development.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More