Free Republic

Oral argument before the Supreme Court this week showed why it is nonsense to claim that anti-vagrancy laws violate the Constitution‘s Eighth Amendment provision against “cruel and unusual punishment.” Indeed, in the vernacular sense, what is cruel and unusual is a judicial edict that says law-abiding citizens must put up with public spaces featuring major health hazards, including even the plague. Yet that’s what some lower courts, bizarrely, say citizens must do. By any normal reading, the Eighth Amendment is intended to forbid overly harsh penalties, not to determine what sorts of conduct can or can’t be outlawed. Unfortunately, the...

The lawyer representing special counsel Jack Smith on Thursday asserted that the reason former President Donald Trump is the first president to face criminal charges is because his predecessors did not commit any crimes. Department of Justice counselor to Smith, Michael Dreeben, went before the Supreme Court to argue presidents should not have constitutional immunity from prosecution for official acts conducted during their presidency. Dreeben suggested that no president until Trump has ever committed crimes when Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas questioned him about no other president having faced prosecutions. “Over the not-so-distant past … certain presidents have engaged in...

This week the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Fischer vs. United States. This concerns the severity of punishment given to many defendants convicted of trespassing in the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the Department of Justice was being questioned by several of the Associate Justices. Justice Paul Gorsuch wondered whether "initiating a false fire alarm like Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) did in order to obstruct a House vote on a bill would be sufficient to trigger a 20-year prison sentence?" Prelogar said "no, because the delay was only a few...

Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) said Thursday on CNN’s “The Lead” that the Supreme Court acted like “partisan hacks” during the oral arguments on Donald Trump’s claim that he is immune from prosecution. Host Jake Tapper said, “Justices signaled today that they were skeptical of Trump’s claim that he had complete immunity for anything he did that was an official act. But they also pushed back on how the special counsel framed the case. How likely do you think it is that the court’s going to try to reach a middle ground ruling that might push this trial beyond November’s election,...

Thursday’s argument in Trump v. United States was a disaster for Special Counsel Jack Smith, and for anyone who believes that the president of the United States should be subject to prosecution if they commit a crime.

The Supreme Court on Thursday heard oral arguments on Trump’s presidential immunity claim in Jack Smith’s January 6 case in DC. The case made its way to the Supreme Court after the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Trump was not immune from prosecution. Trump’s lawyers previously argued that Trump is immune from federal prosecution for alleged ‘crimes’ committed while he served as US President. “In 234 years of American history, no president ever faced criminal prosecution for his official acts. Until 19 days ago, no court had ever addressed whether immunity from such prosecution exists,” Trump’s lawyers wrote in...

Protesters gathered outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday as justices hear a case over whether emergency rooms can provide abortion in medical emergencies in states where abortion is banned. Oral arguments are taking place in the case of Moyle v United States and Idaho v United States. It is the first time the country's highest court will hear arguments over the scope of state abortion bans after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade in 2022 returning the issue of abortion to states. The Biden administration argues the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) can in narrow circumstances...

The Supreme Court will hear a case on Wednesday surrounding the Biden administration’s attempt to require emergency room doctors to perform abortions under its interpretation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act of 1986 (EMTALA). After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, which had invented a constitutional “right” to abortion, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued guidance claiming that EMTALA requires doctors to perform abortions on patients in emergency rooms when it is “the stabilizing treatment necessary” to help in a medical emergency. Under the guidance, hospitals not in compliance could lose funding and the...

The solicitor general’s argument painted a picture of the Biden administration enlarging or contracting statutory language to serve political purposes.The Supreme Court heard oral argument Tuesday in a criminal appeal challenging the Biden administration’s use of a catch-all provision in a federal statute focused on the destruction of evidence to charge hundreds of J6 defendants with a 20-year felony. Over the course of the hour-long argument, the government made clear its view that the federal statute at issue, 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2), had an expansive reach — other than when Antifa burns a courthouse, a member of Congress pulls a fire...

WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is back on the bench after an unexplained one-day absence.Thomas, 75, was in his usual seat, to the right of Chief Justice John Roberts as the court met to hear arguments in a case about the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.Thomas has ignored calls from some progressive groups to step aside from cases involving Jan. 6 because his wife, Ginni, attended then-President Donald Trump’s rally near the White House before protesters descended on the Capitol. Ginni Thomas, a conservative activist, also texted senior Trump administration officials in the weeks after the...

The New York judge overseeing former President Trump’s hush money trial said Monday that Trump cannot attend arguments on presidential immunity at the Supreme Court next week. ... The decision to not allow Trump to be in Washington, D.C., on April 25, when the Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on a presidential immunity claim Trump is making in his federal criminal case, came just before the New York trial adjourned Monday. “Arguing before the Supreme Court is a big deal, and I can certainly appreciate why your client would want to be there, but a trial in...

This week former President Donald Trump announced that "my position on abortion is that we should follow the Supreme Court's ruling that the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution leaves the power to determine whether abortions are legal up to the states. Given the strongly held differences on this issue, it is obvious that there is no consensus among voters. Under these circumstances, the best resolution is to use the 'laboratory of democracy' created by our federal system to try out different approaches in different states." The New York Times complained that "Trump chose politics over principles. Every enlightened thinker...

Special Counsel Jack Smith suggested he ignore the Supreme Court if it reverses the obstruction statute this summer. The US Supreme Court recently announced it will hear oral arguments in Fischer v. United States and at issue is statute 18 USC §1512(c)(2): Whoever corruptly— (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned...

The Arizona Supreme Court has decided to uphold a Civil War-era law that bans abortion. A law on the books from 1864 is enforceable, according to Arizona judges. The year in which that law was passed, 1864, was before human chattel slavery was outlawed, and almost 50 years before Arizona was officially part of the United States. The law makes abortion a felony punishable by two to five years in prison. But the ban may be overturned at the polls in November. The 1864 law goes back into effect in 14 days.

Forget Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It is Sonia Sotomayor who is the greatest liberal to sit on the supreme court in my adult lifetime. The first Latina to hold the position of justice, she has blazed a relentlessly progressive trail on the highest bench in the land.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision on Fischer v United States this summer which means hundreds of J6 cases could be upended. Biden’s corrupt DOJ has charged more than 300 J6ers with 18 USC §1512(c)(2). Additionally, two of the four charges against Trump in Jack Smith’s DC case are conspiracy to obstruct so the Supreme Court’s ruling could torpedo the special counsel’s case against Trump as well. Last week US Attorney from DC Matthew Graves fired a warning shot to the US Supreme Court – and J6ers serving time for 18 USC §1512(c)(2), the ‘obstruction’ statute pending...

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear the case of Nicholas Sandmann, a former Kentucky high school student who sued several news outlets for allegedly libelous coverage of his viral encounter with a Native American activist in 2019. Justices decided not to take up Sandmann’s petition against several outlets, including ABC News, The New York Times, Gannett, and others, leaving in place a lower court’s dismissal of the massive libel suit. The former student argued he was defamed by reports about his confrontation with Native American activist Nathan Phillips at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., five years ago....

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a man’s lawsuit challenging his placement on the federal government’s “No Fly List” can proceed, finding that the government did not prove the case was moot after removing him from the list. Yonas Fikre, a U.S. citizen, claimed the FBI unlawfully placed him on the list and pressured him to become an informant. While the government argued Fikre’s removal meant the case was moot, the Court rejected this view, allowing the merits of the allegations to be examined in lower courts

So, big news hit the headlines recently – the Supreme Court gave Texas the green light to enforce a new law aimed at tackling illegal border crossings from Mexico. But guess what? Mexico isn’t too thrilled about it. Let’s break it down: Texas has this law that lets the police nab and detain folks crossing the border illegally. It was supposed to kick in earlier, but the Supreme Court hit the pause button for a bit to think it over. Now, Mexico’s not having any of it. They’re saying, “Nope, we won’t take back anyone Texas sends over.” Their top...

A federal appeals court late Tuesday night put Texas’ controversial immigration law back on hold, hours after the Supreme Court had cleared the way for the state to begin enforcing the measure. In a brief order, a three-judge panel at the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to wipe away a previous ruling from a different panel that had temporarily put the law, which would allow state officials to arrest and detain people they suspect of entering the country illegally, into effect. The panel of judges that issued Tuesday night’s order is already set to hear arguments Wednesday...