Ongoing discussion of SCOTUS cases (1 Viewer)

[MT15]

With the increased scrutiny due to recent revelations in the press I thought maybe we can use a SCOTUS thread. We can discuss the impending Senate investigation and the legislation proposed today by Murkowski and King in the Senate that will formalize ethical guidelines.

We can also use this thread to highlight cases that possibly don’t deserve their own thread, like the following.

I saw this case today, and I cannot believe the US Government is allowed to do this. Unreasonable search and seizure? The examples he gives in the rest of the thread are just sickening:

 

[Dragon]

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a federal prison inmate cannot sue corrections officers for an alleged assault in which he was punched, kicked and had his face slammed into a wall.

The loss for inmate Andrew Fields is the latest setback for plaintiffs seeking to hold federal officials accountable for constitutional violations.

Although the Supreme Court allowed such claims in a 1971 ruling called Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, it has since changed course and made it almost impossible to do so in most situations.

The unsigned ruling, which had no dissents, said that if Fields' claim was allowed to move forward, it "could have negative systemic consequences for prison officials." Fields has other ways of vindicating his rights, the court added.

"Forbidding courts from redressing a constitutional violation is wrong, and it is especially dangerous in this day and age to immunize federal executive officials from accountability for their actions," Fields' lawyer, Danny Zemel, said in a statement.

A lawyer for the officers did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.

Fields, 53, had sought to bring a "Bivens claim" arising from the 2021 incident at a federal prison in Lee County, Virginia. He is now at a different prison in Florida.

The facts are disputed, with officers saying he initially assaulted them, which he denies.

Fields, serving a lengthy sentence for drugs and gun offenses, alleges that the incident began when he went to lunch without bringing a required movement pass.

While being moved to a special housing unit, Fields says officers punched him in the face and stomped on him.

Then, once he was secured in the unit and restrained, the officers shoved his face into the wall, slammed a security shield into his back, and again punched him and kneed him in the groin, he alleges.

A federal judge threw out Fields' lawsuit, which he filed without the help of a lawyer. But in a 2024 ruling, the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived it, saying he could bring a claim under the Constitution's 8th Amendment, which protects against cruel and unusual punishment in the prison context.

The Supreme Court has over several decades shown a reluctance to allow Bivens claims.

In the most recent decision, the court in 2022 said Border Patrol agents could not be sued.

In the 12 months after that ruling, lower courts cited it 228 times in a variety of cases against all kinds of federal officials, an NBC News investigation found. In 195 of those cases, constitutional claims were dismissed.

Congress has never enacted legislation that would specifically allow federal officials to be sued individually for constitutional violations, even though it allows similar claims to be brought against state and local officials.............

Supreme Court rules prison inmate can't sue federal officers for alleged assault

The decision further undermines people's ability to sue federal officials for constitutional violations, which the Supreme Court first recognized in 1971.

www.nbcnews.com

It’s always struck me as strange how normalized violence seems to be in U.S. prisons. In contrast, where I’m from, any incident involving a prison officer using force—especially hitting an inmate—would automatically trigger a formal investigation and a detailed report. All public areas in our prisons are monitored by surveillance cameras, so claims of self-defense can be quickly verified or disproven. But perhaps the bigger difference is cultural: here, incarcerated individuals retain more of their rights—including the right to vote while serving their sentence.

The overall focus is less on punishment and more on rehabilitation. That’s why inmates have access to education, vocational training, and anger management programs while behind bars. The goal is to reintegrate—not just incarcerate.

 

[Sendai]

“Supreme Court Won’t Allow Florida to Enforce Law Criminalizing Undocumented Immigrants”

“The Supreme Court has refused to allow Florida to enforce a state law making it a crime for undocumented immigrants to enter or remain in Florida. Wednesday’s brief, unsigned order leaves in place a U.S. district judge’s ruling blocking Florida from allowing local police officers to arrest people based on their immigration status. The American Civil Liberties Union welcomed the Supreme Court’s order, writing, “This ruling affirms what the Constitution demands — that immigration enforcement is a federal matter and that no one should be stripped of their liberty without due process.”

 

[MT15]

A bridge too far even for this Court. I fear this is the exception that proves the rule, though.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

A bridge too far even for this Court. I fear this is the exception that proves the rule, though.

I think the 6 agenda driven Republicans on the court make rulings like this on less impactful cases so they can pretend to be fair and only following the law. Con artists have to do some beneficial things for you so you'll trust them enough to let them completely screw you over.

Florida's and Texas' immigration enforcement laws didn't add much to the current abusive and sadistic mistreatment of immigrants. ICE is all over that and they don't need any state's help. These state laws being stricken down won't decrease the current abusive and sadistic mistreatment of immigrants, so it was the perfect decision for the agenda driven Republicans to use to pretend they are fair and only following the law.

 

[SFIDC3]

I think the 6 agenda driven Republicans on the court make rulings like this on less impactful cases so they can pretend to be fair and only following the law. Con artists have to do some beneficial things for you so you'll trust them enough to let them completely screw you over.

Florida's and Texas' immigration enforcement laws didn't add much to the current abusive and sadistic mistreatment of immigrants. ICE is all over that and they don't need any state's help. These state laws being stricken down won't decrease the current abusive and sadistic mistreatment of immigrants, so it was the perfect decision for the agenda driven Republicans to use to pretend they are fair and only following the law.

Yup, exactly, this is low hanging fruit for them.....they aren't fooling anyone with half a brain, the SC is an absolute partisan white christian nationalist disgrace....

 

[MT15]

There can be no doubt that this SCOTUS is delivering what they’ve been paid to deliver. Sickening.

 

[MT15]

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

These "shadow docket" rulings are in direct conflict with the law that establishes these agencies. The Roberts court has solidified their judgements do not represent any fidelity to the laws they swore to uphold.

 

[MT15]

 

[MT15]

 

[Sendai]

The Supreme Court issued a stay on the District Court Judge’s injunction and the case returns to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals for determination.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

The Supreme Court issued a stay on the District Court Judge’s injunction and the case returns to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals for determination.

Meanwhile, the DoEd has been gutted to the point where its unable to fulfill its legal obligations. How is a President allowed to sabotage an agency that was established by law, when the President is Constitutionally obligated by the Take Care Clause to faithfully execute such a law????

The cowardly and corrupt Roberts court refuses to answer that question by relying on its corrupt use of the shadow docket.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

The Supreme Court issued a stay on the District Court Judge’s injunction and the case returns to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals for determination.

Trying to put lipstick on a pig, and you're trying to put it on the arse end of the pig at that.

The stay by the District Court kept Trump from dismantling the Dept. of Education until after the case was resolved. A stay is issued to prevent irreparable harm while a case is being decided. It's a pause.

The Republicans on on the Supreme Court are allowing Trump to dismantle the Dept of Education while the case is pending. If the pause stays in place during the court process and Trump wins, then Trump can dismantle the Dept of Education(DOE) and no harm done to Trump.

The pause has been lifted, so Trump can start dismantling the Dept of Education while the case is being tried. Trump will be finished dismantling the DOE, before the case is finished. If Trump loses the case, guess what? He will still have dismantled the DOE which will be an irreparable harm. It's a lot easier to tear something down than to build something. Even if Trump were forced to rebuild the DOE and he tried to do it in good faith, which Trump will never do, then it will take years to a decade to repair the damage Trump done.

The 6 Republicans overturned the stay/pause of Trump dismantling the DOE, because it fits their agenda for a tyrannical America to let Trump do irreparable damage to the DOE. They aren't overturning these stays/pauses as a matter of law, they are doing it to enact their very unconstitutional agenda.

The 6 Republicans on the Supreme Court are foxes in the hen house armed with sawed off shotguns and chainsaws. In case it's not clear, the hens are the Constitution in that metaphor.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Just when we thought the US supreme court couldn’t sink any lower in bowing and scraping to Donald Trump, it issued a shocking order last week that brushed aside important legal precedents as it ruled in the president’s favor.

In that case, the court’s rightwing supermajority essentially gave Trump carte blanche to dismantle the Department of Education, which plays an important role in the lives of the nation’s 50 million public schoolchildren, sending federal money to schools, helping students with disabilities and enforcing anti-discrimination laws.

Many legal experts, along with the court’s three liberal justices, protested that the court was letting Trump abolish a congressionally created federal agency without Congress’s approval.

In their dissent, the liberal justices warned that the court was undermining Congress’s authority and the constitution’s separation of powers. Not only that, we should all be concerned that the court was giving dangerous new powers to the most authoritarian-minded president in US history.

In the Department of Education case, the court issued a one-paragraph, unsigned order that lifted a lower court’s injunction that blocked the Trump administration from making wholesale layoffs that went far toward dismantling the department.

Recognizing that Article I of the constitution gives Congress the power to create and fund federal agencies and define their responsibilities, prior supreme court decisions have held that presidents don’t have the power to defy what Congress has legislated and gut an agency without Congress’s approval.

In a stinging dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote: “Only Congress has the power to abolish the Department. The Executive’s task, by contrast, is to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.’” Sotomayor added that the court’s order “permitting the Government to proceed with dismantling the Department” was “indefensible”.…….

Sotomayor wrote that the constitution requires all presidents, including Trump, to faithfully execute the law. But in this case, Trump seemed eager to execute the Department of Education, while showing scant concern for executing the law. Noting Trump’s repeated vows to abolish the department, Sotomayor chided the supermajority, writing: “When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary’s duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it.”

With that language, the three dissenting justices were in essence accusing the supermajority of aiding and abetting Trump’s defiance of the law. In the court’s 236-year history, rarely have dissenting justices been so emphatic in criticizing the majority for “expediting” a president’s lawlessness.……

One would think the nine justices would be eager to strengthen the pillars that uphold our democracy: the separation of powers, fair elections, respect for the law, limits on the power of the executive.

But the Roberts court has too often weakened those pillars: by giving Trump huge immunity from prosecution, by turning a blind eye to egregious gerrymandering that prevents fair elections and by letting Trump fire top officials from independent agencies long before their terms end.

In late June, the supermajority curbed district courts’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions to put a brake on Trump’s rampant lawlessness – by that time, lower court judges had issued more than 190 ordersblocking or temporarily pausing Trump actions they deemed unlawful.…….

The supreme court is giving a lawless president the green light | Steven Greenhouse

The Department of Education case is the latest example of an unexplained decision bowing to Trump

www.theguardian.com

 

[MT15]

Well, the 6 concubines’ record of giving relief to Trump is still perfect. Bought and paid for.

 

[Sendai]

Well, the 6 concubines’ record of giving relief to Trump is still perfect. Bought and paid for.

“The June 13, 2025, order of the United States DistrictCourt for the District of Maryland, No. 8:25–cv–01628, ECFDoc. 25, is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal inthe United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuitand disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if sucha writ is timely sought.”
It’s up to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

25A11

www.documentcloud.org

 

[MT15]

“The June 13, 2025, order of the United States DistrictCourt for the District of Maryland, No. 8:25–cv–01628, ECFDoc. 25, is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal inthe United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuitand disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if sucha writ is timely sought.”
It’s up to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

25A11

www.documentcloud.org

That’s no different than what I said. Why allow him to go ahead while it’s still under litigation unless you really just want him to do what he wants to do anyway?

SCOTUS knows it can be difficult if not impossible to undo these types of actions.

There’s no reason to lift the stay. None.

 

[Sendai]

That’s no different than what I said. Why allow him to go ahead while it’s still under litigation unless you really just want him to do what he wants to do anyway?

SCOTUS knows it can be difficult if not impossible to undo these types of actions.

There’s no reason to lift the stay. None.

Given that the question before the appeals court, as to whether the removals are permitted, is currently unresolved, the individuals in question are in limbo. That question must be resolved before they can reinstated.