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:

 

[coldseat]

I don't really have a problem with the SC ruling, but I think this lawsuit is bunk. We gays (or most other minority groups) do not have the numbers or power in government or the majority of other organizations to discriminate against the majority straight, white population in any wholesale or systemic way. Certainly not in the way straight, white people have used government to discriminate against LGBTQ+ people (we're seeing that now full force) and other minority groups.

Most likely the people in that case who made the decision to replace that lady and not promote her were straight, white people. But she probably listens to Fox News, so no doubt she believes is was reverse discrimination. That's probably why this standard existed, to prevent these frivolous lawsuits. But Republicans are hell bent on making sure we're the most litigious society in human history.

 

[Optimus Prime]

more on this

This specific instance may have a case but my larger issue is the pandora's box it will open (intentionally by Stephen Miller) that only reason a white person (especially white male) doesn't get a job or get a promotion and a minority does is because of reverse discrimination

Which we are already seeing with Trump and GOP blaming diversity for everything
==================================================

..........Ames says her boss, a gay woman, passed her over for a promotion and instead gave it to another gay woman who was less qualified. Ames says she was then demoted and a gay man who was also less qualified was given her position.

“She was a 20-year employee, great reviews, and then all of a sudden she's not hired and someone's hired who’s gay, doesn't have her level of college experience and didn't even want the job,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said reciting facts in the case.

“Something suspicious about that. It certainly can give rise to an inference of discrimination,” Sotomayor added.

Courts have previously relied on “background circumstances” when reviewing discrimination cases as they apply to majority groups. These standards require a person in a majority group to show that their employer is the “unusual one” that discriminates against members of majority groups.

These standards were set in 1981 and are used in more than half of the country’s federal appeals courts.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals used the standards when reviewing, and ultimately deciding against Ames, in her case

However, the justices appeared mostly to agree that it was unfair to apply higher standards to those in majority groups when it comes to discrimination cases.

“It doesn't matter if she was gay or whether she was straight, she would have the exact same burden and be treated the exact same way under Title VII,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett said.

Justice Neil Gorsuch said there was “radical agreement” in the courtroom for that position.

If the court rules with Ames, it could make it easier for white people to bring claims of racial discrimination as a result of diversity, equity and inclusion policies – something President Donald Trump is determined to dismantle in the administration..........

Straight woman’s reverse discrimination case could open the door for similar lawsuits

Ohio woman who lost out on promotion to a gay woman is asking the Supreme Court to allow her to file a workplace discrimination lawsuit against her employer

www.the-independent.com

 

[Eeyore]

Supreme Court Rules the Clean Water Act Doesn’t Actually Require That Water Be Clean

Amy Coney Barrett was not having it.

slate.com

 

[DaveXA]

Supreme Court Rules the Clean Water Act Doesn’t Actually Require That Water Be Clean

Amy Coney Barrett was not having it.

slate.com

ACB outside of the abortion issue has seemed to be a pretty reasonable SCOTUS justice for the most part. Unfortunately, the numbers didn't add up.

 

[bird]

Supreme Court Rules the Clean Water Act Doesn’t Actually Require That Water Be Clean

Amy Coney Barrett was not having it.

slate.com

Unsurprising. The Republican Supreme Court in Ohio ruled in a case involving a customer who ordered boneless wings and got a bone stuck in his esophagus which caused much trauma and medical treatment that boneless is a “cooking style” and customers should expect bones in boneless wings.

Republicans don’t give a schlitz about human beings.

 

[Optimus Prime]

CNN) — The Supreme Court on Friday allowed President Donald Trump to temporarily freeze millions of dollars in grants to states for addressing teacher shortages, the administration’s first win at the high court since reclaiming power in January.

The decision was 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts and the three liberals dissenting……

Supreme Court allows Trump to freeze dozens of teacher training grants | CNN Politics

The Supreme Court on Friday allowed President Donald Trump to temporarily freeze millions of dollars in grants to states for addressing teacher shortages, the administration’s first win at the high court since reclaiming power in January.

www.cnn.com

 

[bird]

CNN) — The Supreme Court on Friday allowed President Donald Trump to temporarily freeze millions of dollars in grants to states for addressing teacher shortages, the administration’s first win at the high court since reclaiming power in January.

The decision was 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts and the three liberals dissenting……

Supreme Court allows Trump to freeze dozens of teacher training grants | CNN Politics

The Supreme Court on Friday allowed President Donald Trump to temporarily freeze millions of dollars in grants to states for addressing teacher shortages, the administration’s first win at the high court since reclaiming power in January.

www.cnn.com

You cannot count on Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett to do the right thing. It may happen at some point in some case but generally they are MAGAts.

 

[Lapaz]

You cannot count on Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett to do the right thing. It may happen at some point in some case but generally they are MAGAts.

Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barrett. along with the left leaning judges are our only hope. Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch are right-wing activist judges.

 

[bird]

Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barrett. along with the left leaning judges are our only hope. Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch are right-wing activist judges.

My mistake. I forgot Thomas. I just don’t think that Kavanaugh and Barrett can be counted on. Roberts may be a bit more centrist.

 

[superchuck500]

This is something

I Think Neil Gorsuch Is Lying About a “Religious Freedom” Case Again

Why did Gorsuch claim that ‘Pride Puppy’, an alphabet book about a lost dog, introduces kids to bondage and sex workers? Let’s find out!

ballsandstrikes.org

 

[Optimus Prime]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court seemed inclined to a narrow ruling on Tuesday in a law-enforcement accountability case over an FBI raid that targeted the wrong house.

While some justices appeared open to the argument that the family should be able to sue over the mistake that left them traumatized, the court seemed wary of handing down a more sweeping ruling on when the federal government can be held liable for law-enforcement decisions.

The case was filed after FBI agents broke down Trina Martin’s door before dawn in 2017. They pointed guns at Martin and her then-boyfriend and terrified her 7-year-old son before realizing they were in the wrong place.

The FBI team quickly apologized and left, with the leader later saying that his personal GPS had led him to the wrong place.

The government says judges shouldn’t be second-guessing decisions made in the absence of a specific policy and Martin can’t sue over an honest mistake. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, tossing out the lawsuit in 2022.

Both liberal and conservative justices appeared skeptical of the government’s position in Martin’s case, with Justice Neil Gorsuch asking incredulously, “No policy says, ‘Don’t break down the door of the wrong house? Don’t traumatize its occupants?’”

Still, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was among those who suggested there could be some situations where law enforcement decisions should be shielded from liability, though “perhaps not here.”

The justices seemed to be leaning toward tossing out part of the 11th Circuit’s decision and sending it back for more litigation. A decision is expected around the end of June……….

Supreme Court seems likely to rule narrowly in case over FBI raid on wrong Georgia home

The Supreme Court seemed inclined to a narrow ruling in a law-enforcement accountability case over an FBI raid that targeted the wrong house.

apnews.com

 

[coldseat]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court seemed inclined to a narrow ruling on Tuesday in a law-enforcement accountability case over an FBI raid that targeted the wrong house.

While some justices appeared open to the argument that the family should be able to sue over the mistake that left them traumatized, the court seemed wary of handing down a more sweeping ruling on when the federal government can be held liable for law-enforcement decisions.

The case was filed after FBI agents broke down Trina Martin’s door before dawn in 2017. They pointed guns at Martin and her then-boyfriend and terrified her 7-year-old son before realizing they were in the wrong place.

The FBI team quickly apologized and left, with the leader later saying that his personal GPS had led him to the wrong place.

The government says judges shouldn’t be second-guessing decisions made in the absence of a specific policy and Martin can’t sue over an honest mistake. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, tossing out the lawsuit in 2022.

Both liberal and conservative justices appeared skeptical of the government’s position in Martin’s case, with Justice Neil Gorsuch asking incredulously, “No policy says, ‘Don’t break down the door of the wrong house? Don’t traumatize its occupants?’”

Still, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was among those who suggested there could be some situations where law enforcement decisions should be shielded from liability, though “perhaps not here.”

The justices seemed to be leaning toward tossing out part of the 11th Circuit’s decision and sending it back for more litigation. A decision is expected around the end of June……….

Supreme Court seems likely to rule narrowly in case over FBI raid on wrong Georgia home

The Supreme Court seemed inclined to a narrow ruling in a law-enforcement accountability case over an FBI raid that targeted the wrong house.

apnews.com

Police can make honest mistakes, but when it's something like that, the government should at the very least be responsible for fixing/replacing whatever damage was done. They should also have to pay if people, children especially, are traumatized and need mental health counseling afterwards. I don't understand why that's even controversial.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court seemed inclined to a narrow ruling on Tuesday in a law-enforcement accountability case over an FBI raid that targeted the wrong house.

While some justices appeared open to the argument that the family should be able to sue over the mistake that left them traumatized, the court seemed wary of handing down a more sweeping ruling on when the federal government can be held liable for law-enforcement decisions.

The case was filed after FBI agents broke down Trina Martin’s door before dawn in 2017. They pointed guns at Martin and her then-boyfriend and terrified her 7-year-old son before realizing they were in the wrong place.

The FBI team quickly apologized and left, with the leader later saying that his personal GPS had led him to the wrong place.

The government says judges shouldn’t be second-guessing decisions made in the absence of a specific policy and Martin can’t sue over an honest mistake. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, tossing out the lawsuit in 2022.

Both liberal and conservative justices appeared skeptical of the government’s position in Martin’s case, with Justice Neil Gorsuch asking incredulously, “No policy says, ‘Don’t break down the door of the wrong house? Don’t traumatize its occupants?’”

Still, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was among those who suggested there could be some situations where law enforcement decisions should be shielded from liability, though “perhaps not here.”

The justices seemed to be leaning toward tossing out part of the 11th Circuit’s decision and sending it back for more litigation. A decision is expected around the end of June……….

Supreme Court seems likely to rule narrowly in case over FBI raid on wrong Georgia home

The Supreme Court seemed inclined to a narrow ruling in a law-enforcement accountability case over an FBI raid that targeted the wrong house.

apnews.com

I watched a YT video with their lawyer yesterday and this family was a split-hair decision away from being killed. The mom retreated to a closet to retrieve her weapon believing that they were being home-invaded by criminals.

 

[coldseat]

I watched a YT video with their lawyer yesterday and this family was a split-hair decision away from being killed. The mom retreated to a closet to retrieve her weapon believing that they were being home-invaded by criminals.

How do they not check the address first? The first question being, "What's your address?" is ridiculous. They need to know that first.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

How do they not check the address first? The first question being, "What's your address?" is ridiculous. They need to know that first.

INDEED!

That's the same thing I was wondering! The FBI was relying on an agent's personal GPS device to serve a warrant in a city? I could ALMOST understand if they were in a rural county, they were in Atlanta.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

The Supreme Court’s conservative justices signaled Wednesday they are open to allowing the Catholic Church to launch the country’s first publicly funded religious charter school, despite arguments from opponents who say the school would violate the Constitution’s ban on government-established religion.

The justices heard arguments on an Oklahoma court decision last year that rejected a state contract to open the planned online-only charter school, known as St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School. If the justices overturn that decision, they would allow, for the first time, a charter school receiving state funds to teach an explicitly religious curriculum.

The school’s supporters say a ruling in favor of St. Isidore would clear the way for a new form of public education that would advance religious freedom and school choice.

But as the justices discussed how the case intertwined with religious liberty during more than two hours of oral arguments, they also signaled interest in whether a religious public charter school would be a government entity or private actor — and how a potential ruling in St. Isidore’s favor could affect charter school programs across the country.
“I can imagine some states might respond to a decision in your favor by imposing more requirements on charter schools,” Justice Neil Gorsuch said to Jim Campbell, an attorney for the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative organization representing an Oklahoma charter school board that first approved St. Isidore’s state contract. “Have you thought about that boomerang effect for charter schools?”

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/30/supreme-court-favors-first-religious-charter-school-00318087

It's baffling that SCOTUS is even hearing this case. I can't wait until someone wants to open Elijah Muhammad, Nation of Islam Charter School and have the public fund the school.

 

[Sendai]

After ratification of the bill of rights it was routine for the federal government to to fund religious schools, orphanages, and hospitals up to the end of the 19th century. There was a hundred years of federally funded Christian Indian Schools.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” was included in the first amendment to protect the nine states that had official state religions.

Funding religious schools isn’t establishing a religion.

 

[bird]

The Supreme Court’s conservative justices signaled Wednesday they are open to allowing the Catholic Church to launch the country’s first publicly funded religious charter school, despite arguments from opponents who say the school would violate the Constitution’s ban on government-established religion.

The justices heard arguments on an Oklahoma court decision last year that rejected a state contract to open the planned online-only charter school, known as St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School. If the justices overturn that decision, they would allow, for the first time, a charter school receiving state funds to teach an explicitly religious curriculum.

The school’s supporters say a ruling in favor of St. Isidore would clear the way for a new form of public education that would advance religious freedom and school choice.

But as the justices discussed how the case intertwined with religious liberty during more than two hours of oral arguments, they also signaled interest in whether a religious public charter school would be a government entity or private actor — and how a potential ruling in St. Isidore’s favor could affect charter school programs across the country.
“I can imagine some states might respond to a decision in your favor by imposing more requirements on charter schools,” Justice Neil Gorsuch said to Jim Campbell, an attorney for the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative organization representing an Oklahoma charter school board that first approved St. Isidore’s state contract. “Have you thought about that boomerang effect for charter schools?”

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/30/supreme-court-favors-first-religious-charter-school-00318087

It's baffling that SCOTUS is even hearing this case. I can't wait until someone wants to open Elijah Muhammad, Nation of Islam Charter School and have the public fund the school.

Advance religious freedom? Bull-forking-schlitz. This has literally nothing to do with religious freedom. It is about money, about access to the public teat. And about destruction of public education.

Tell Rome to sell off some art and gold.

Please, please, open the Wiccan charter school if this idiot SCOTUS decides for religion to demand public money.