US SUPREME COURT
===US Supreme Court===
Trump loses bid to toss hush money conviction on immunity grounds
Donald Trump on Monday lost a bid to overturn his criminal conviction stemming from hush money paid to a porn star in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's July ruling recognizing immunity from prosecution for a president's official acts. Justice Juan Merchan's denial of Trump's motion to dismiss the New York state case forecloses one avenue for the Republican president-elect to enter the White House on Jan. 20 for his second four-year term without the stain of a criminal conviction. (Reuters 12/16/24) READMORE>>>>>>
Donald Trump on Monday lost a bid to overturn his criminal conviction stemming from hush money paid to a porn star in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's July ruling recognizing immunity from prosecution for a president's official acts. Justice Juan Merchan's denial of Trump's motion to dismiss the New York state case forecloses one avenue for the Republican president-elect to enter the White House on Jan. 20 for his second four-year term without the stain of a criminal conviction. (Reuters 12/16/24) READMORE>>>>>>
New Revelations Show Just How Corrupt the Supreme Court Really Is
Last spring, Justice Samuel Alito had drafted an opinion dropping federal charges against many of the January 6 insurrectionists who violently stormed the Capitol. The ruling in Fischer v. United States had not yet been released. Then The New York Times published a startling story: Alito himself had flown the flag of insurrection at his home. (He briefly blamed it on his wife: “She is fond of flying flags.”) Days later, it was reported that he had flown such flags at his vacation home as well. Awkward! Grounds for recusal? Time to rethink the ruling? Nah. Instead, Chief Justice John Roberts quietly took Alito’s embarrassing name off the opinion and slipped his own name onto it instead. That is just one of the gobsmacking revelations from a story by Jodi Kantor and Adam Liptak that appeared in The New York Times last weekend. The lurid news of the day quickly overwhelmed it—the gunman arrested outside Donald Trump’s golf course, the continued smear campaign by former President Trump and Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) against the Haitian immigrant community in a small city in Ohio, and more.
(Alaska Native News 9/21/24) READ MORE>>>>>
Last spring, Justice Samuel Alito had drafted an opinion dropping federal charges against many of the January 6 insurrectionists who violently stormed the Capitol. The ruling in Fischer v. United States had not yet been released. Then The New York Times published a startling story: Alito himself had flown the flag of insurrection at his home. (He briefly blamed it on his wife: “She is fond of flying flags.”) Days later, it was reported that he had flown such flags at his vacation home as well. Awkward! Grounds for recusal? Time to rethink the ruling? Nah. Instead, Chief Justice John Roberts quietly took Alito’s embarrassing name off the opinion and slipped his own name onto it instead. That is just one of the gobsmacking revelations from a story by Jodi Kantor and Adam Liptak that appeared in The New York Times last weekend. The lurid news of the day quickly overwhelmed it—the gunman arrested outside Donald Trump’s golf course, the continued smear campaign by former President Trump and Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) against the Haitian immigrant community in a small city in Ohio, and more.
(Alaska Native News 9/21/24) READ MORE>>>>>
Justices give presidents immunity for official acts, further delaying Trump’s trial
Donald Trump is immune from prosecution for official acts as president but can face trial for private conduct, a divided Supreme Court ruled Monday, declaring a broad new definition of White House power that may stand for generations and will further delay Trump’s election interference case in D.C. The 6-3 decision along ideological lines makes it highly unlikely that the 45th president will go to trial on charges of trying to subvert the 2020 election before voters cast ballots in this year’s presidential contest, in which Trump is the presumptive Republican nominee.
(Washington Post 7/1/24) READ MORE>>>>>
Donald Trump is immune from prosecution for official acts as president but can face trial for private conduct, a divided Supreme Court ruled Monday, declaring a broad new definition of White House power that may stand for generations and will further delay Trump’s election interference case in D.C. The 6-3 decision along ideological lines makes it highly unlikely that the 45th president will go to trial on charges of trying to subvert the 2020 election before voters cast ballots in this year’s presidential contest, in which Trump is the presumptive Republican nominee.
(Washington Post 7/1/24) READ MORE>>>>>
The Trump Trials: A history lesson for the future
The Supreme Court issued its “rule for the ages” Monday morning, and it was a doozy, so we wanted to land back in your inbox with what we think are the big takeaways from the court’s decision on presidential immunity. As much as the ruling draws new lines around what conduct can lead to the prosecution of future presidents, it also implies some pretty shocking reinterpretations of past White House conduct.
(Washington Post 7/1/24) READ MORE>>>>>
The Supreme Court issued its “rule for the ages” Monday morning, and it was a doozy, so we wanted to land back in your inbox with what we think are the big takeaways from the court’s decision on presidential immunity. As much as the ruling draws new lines around what conduct can lead to the prosecution of future presidents, it also implies some pretty shocking reinterpretations of past White House conduct.
(Washington Post 7/1/24) READ MORE>>>>>
After yet another far-right controversy, how do we trust the Supreme Court with our rights?
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito thinks we are all a bunch of morons. Remember his laughable — and insulting — excuse last year for accepting a fancy fishing trip? Well, he outdid himself this week. When confronted with evidence and a picture of a flag flying upside down outside his home soon after the January 6, 2021, insurrection, this was his response: “I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag,” Alito wrote to The New York Times. “It was briefly placed by Mrs. Alito in response to a neighbor’s use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs.” But blaming his wife, obscene as it is, isn't the story. The upside-down flag has become a symbol of MAGA and Donald Trump’s false claims of a rigged election. Moreover, flying the flag upside down is a grotesque way to treat our national symbol. The fact that a sitting Supreme Court justice had an upside-down flag in his yard and didn’t do a thing about it is as repugnant as you can get.
(Yahoo 5/19/24) READ MORE>>>>>
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito thinks we are all a bunch of morons. Remember his laughable — and insulting — excuse last year for accepting a fancy fishing trip? Well, he outdid himself this week. When confronted with evidence and a picture of a flag flying upside down outside his home soon after the January 6, 2021, insurrection, this was his response: “I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag,” Alito wrote to The New York Times. “It was briefly placed by Mrs. Alito in response to a neighbor’s use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs.” But blaming his wife, obscene as it is, isn't the story. The upside-down flag has become a symbol of MAGA and Donald Trump’s false claims of a rigged election. Moreover, flying the flag upside down is a grotesque way to treat our national symbol. The fact that a sitting Supreme Court justice had an upside-down flag in his yard and didn’t do a thing about it is as repugnant as you can get.
(Yahoo 5/19/24) READ MORE>>>>>
Supreme Court snubs House Republicans who dodged metal detectors in Congress after Jan. 6
In the current case, Reps. Andrew Clyde, R-Georgia, Lloyd Smucker, R-Penn., and former Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas had asked the high court to intervene over the “massive fines” they incurred for ignoring magnetometers set up outside the House chamber after rioters assaulted the Capitol in a violent attempt at thwarting certification of President Joe Biden’s election. (USA Today 4/17/24) READ MORE>>>>>
In the current case, Reps. Andrew Clyde, R-Georgia, Lloyd Smucker, R-Penn., and former Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas had asked the high court to intervene over the “massive fines” they incurred for ignoring magnetometers set up outside the House chamber after rioters assaulted the Capitol in a violent attempt at thwarting certification of President Joe Biden’s election. (USA Today 4/17/24) READ MORE>>>>>
Special counsel asks Supreme Court to let Trump's 2020 election case proceed to trial without delay
Special counsel Jack Smith urged the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday to let former President Donald Trump's 2020 election interference case proceed to trial without further delay. Prosecutors were responding to a Trump team request from earlier in the week asking for a continued pause in the case as the court considers whether to take up the question of whether the former president is immune from prosecution for official acts in the White House. Two lower courts have overwhelmingly rejected that position, prompting Trump to ask the high court to intervene. (WDSU 2/14/24) READ MORE>>>>>
Special counsel Jack Smith urged the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday to let former President Donald Trump's 2020 election interference case proceed to trial without further delay. Prosecutors were responding to a Trump team request from earlier in the week asking for a continued pause in the case as the court considers whether to take up the question of whether the former president is immune from prosecution for official acts in the White House. Two lower courts have overwhelmingly rejected that position, prompting Trump to ask the high court to intervene. (WDSU 2/14/24) READ MORE>>>>>
|
Supreme Court Deliberates Trump's 2024 Ballot Eligibility Amid Insurrection Claims
The Supreme Court is grappling with the question of former President Trump's eligibility for the 2024 presidential ballot, as they debate the definition of 'insurrection' and its implications under the 14th Amendment. The decision, expected in the coming months, will have significant national implications and set a precedent for the application of the 14th Amendment in the context of presidential eligibility. The crux of the argument lies in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits individuals who have engaged in insurrection from holding public office. During the hearing, both conservative and liberal justices expressed concerns about allowing individual states to determine a candidate's eligibility, suggesting that such a decision could have significant national implications.(BNN 2/8/24) READ MORE>>>>> |
The Supreme Court's decision, expected in the coming months, will not only determine Trump's political future but also set a precedent for the application of the 14th Amendment in the context of presidential eligibility. As the nation watches and waits, the echoes of January 6 continue to reverberate through the halls of justice. |
As Supreme Court weighs Trump’s eligibility, the ‘10th justice’ stays mum
As the Supreme Court prepares to hold arguments next month on Donald Trump’s eligibility to run for president, there’s one viewpoint it hasn’t heard: the Biden administration’s. In most high-stakes cases with serious implications for the federal government, the Justice Department weighs in with the official views of the executive branch. But in the Trump case, amid a flood of amicus briefs from states, lawmakers, law professors and interest groups, any filing from the Justice Department has so far been noticeably absent
(Josh Gerstein/Politico 1/22/24) READ MORE>>>>>
As the Supreme Court prepares to hold arguments next month on Donald Trump’s eligibility to run for president, there’s one viewpoint it hasn’t heard: the Biden administration’s. In most high-stakes cases with serious implications for the federal government, the Justice Department weighs in with the official views of the executive branch. But in the Trump case, amid a flood of amicus briefs from states, lawmakers, law professors and interest groups, any filing from the Justice Department has so far been noticeably absent
(Josh Gerstein/Politico 1/22/24) READ MORE>>>>>
Opinion Why the Supreme Court ought to punt on Trump’s eligibility
Donald Trump’s Iowa caucuses romp raises the stakes in Trump v. Anderson, the Supreme Court’s review of a Colorado ruling disqualifying him from the state’s ballot. Soon after the justices hear the case next month, Trump could be the presumptive GOP nominee. The meaning of the 14th Amendment’s disqualification-for-insurrection clause will cease being an academic hypothetical and start being a question of whether states can, in effect, block an unfolding presidential nomination process. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court briefs have poured in. Most retread familiar legal ground, but an amicus brief filed Thursday by election law scholars Edward B. Foley and Richard L. Hasen, along with election lawyer Benjamin L. Ginsberg, makes a distinctive appeal: Whatever you do, the trio urges the justices, don’t punt on the question of Trump’s eligibility. Either rule that he is qualified for the presidency or rule that he is disqualified from it, full stop — don’t reverse the Colorado decision on “procedural or jurisdictional grounds.” (Jason Willick/Washington Post/The Bulwark 1/21/24)
READ MORE>>>>>
Donald Trump’s Iowa caucuses romp raises the stakes in Trump v. Anderson, the Supreme Court’s review of a Colorado ruling disqualifying him from the state’s ballot. Soon after the justices hear the case next month, Trump could be the presumptive GOP nominee. The meaning of the 14th Amendment’s disqualification-for-insurrection clause will cease being an academic hypothetical and start being a question of whether states can, in effect, block an unfolding presidential nomination process. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court briefs have poured in. Most retread familiar legal ground, but an amicus brief filed Thursday by election law scholars Edward B. Foley and Richard L. Hasen, along with election lawyer Benjamin L. Ginsberg, makes a distinctive appeal: Whatever you do, the trio urges the justices, don’t punt on the question of Trump’s eligibility. Either rule that he is qualified for the presidency or rule that he is disqualified from it, full stop — don’t reverse the Colorado decision on “procedural or jurisdictional grounds.” (Jason Willick/Washington Post/The Bulwark 1/21/24)
READ MORE>>>>>
“I predict that human judges will be around for a while,” Roberts wrote. “But with equal confidence I predict that judicial work – particularly at the trial level – will be significantly affected by AI.” |
Roberts warns of AI ‘dehumanizing the law’ in year-end report but avoids Trump legal disputes, Supreme Court ethics reform
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts raised concerns about the increasing presence of artificial intelligence in the US judicial system in an annual report released Sunday, warning that the emerging technology could risk “dehumanizing the law” and imperiling fair treatment in the justice system. “AI obviously has great potential to dramatically increase access to key information for lawyers and non-lawyers alike. But just as obviously it risks invading privacy interests and dehumanizing the law,” Roberts wrote. (Devan Cole/CNN 12/31/23) READ MORE>>>>> |
JAMIE RASKIN CALLS ON CLARENCE THOMAS TO RECUSE HIMSELF IN TRUMP IMMUNITY CASE
Constitutional scholar and ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) called on Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself when the Supreme Court hears Trump’s claim that he is immune from prosecution.est migrants who crossed the border and charge them with misdemeanor trespassing. Raskin said when asked about recusal on CNN’s State Of The Union, “Finally, the Supreme Court has developed what they’re describing as a code of ethics. It’s not binding in the sense that they’re not going to anyone else. They could have gone to for example, circuit court justices, so they’re deciding for themselves again whether they’re in violation of their code of ethics, but anybody looking at this in any kind of dispassionate, reasonable way would say, if your wife was involved in the big lie, in claiming that Donald Trump had actually won the presidential election and had been agitating for that and participating this the events leading up to January 6th, that you shouldn’t be participating. (Jason Easley/PolitcusUSA 12/31/23)
READ MORE>>>>>
Constitutional scholar and ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) called on Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself when the Supreme Court hears Trump’s claim that he is immune from prosecution.est migrants who crossed the border and charge them with misdemeanor trespassing. Raskin said when asked about recusal on CNN’s State Of The Union, “Finally, the Supreme Court has developed what they’re describing as a code of ethics. It’s not binding in the sense that they’re not going to anyone else. They could have gone to for example, circuit court justices, so they’re deciding for themselves again whether they’re in violation of their code of ethics, but anybody looking at this in any kind of dispassionate, reasonable way would say, if your wife was involved in the big lie, in claiming that Donald Trump had actually won the presidential election and had been agitating for that and participating this the events leading up to January 6th, that you shouldn’t be participating. (Jason Easley/PolitcusUSA 12/31/23)
READ MORE>>>>>
The Supreme Court must take charge of the US political and legal mess, but it isn’t in a hurry
The new Donald Trump election controversies give the Supreme Court a chance to seize the moment as the justices’ stature continues to shrink. For months, the justices have been on the defensive because of controversy over precedent-shattering decisions and their off-bench behavior. The court will inevitably be situated to shape developments in the 2024 presidential election and, more broadly, determine the course of American democracy. For the justices’ own institutional reputation, the question is whether they can, in the public eye, make good on their regular admonition that the court is above politics. (Joan Biskupic/CNN 12/22/23)
READ MORE>>>>>
The new Donald Trump election controversies give the Supreme Court a chance to seize the moment as the justices’ stature continues to shrink. For months, the justices have been on the defensive because of controversy over precedent-shattering decisions and their off-bench behavior. The court will inevitably be situated to shape developments in the 2024 presidential election and, more broadly, determine the course of American democracy. For the justices’ own institutional reputation, the question is whether they can, in the public eye, make good on their regular admonition that the court is above politics. (Joan Biskupic/CNN 12/22/23)
READ MORE>>>>>
Jan 17, 2023: AlterNet: How billionaire Harlan Crow slashed his tax bill by taking Clarence Thomas on superyacht cruises
For months, Harlan Crow and members of Congress have been engaged in a fight over whether the billionaire needs to divulge details about his gifts to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, including globe-trotting trips aboard his 162-foot yacht, the Michaela Rose.
For months, Harlan Crow and members of Congress have been engaged in a fight over whether the billionaire needs to divulge details about his gifts to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, including globe-trotting trips aboard his 162-foot yacht, the Michaela Rose.
April 9, 2023:Clarence Thomas On The Record
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said Friday he was not required to disclose the many trips he and his wife took that were paid for by Republican megadonor Harlan Crow. Describing Crow and his wife, Kathy, as “among our dearest friends,” Thomas said in a statement that he was advised by colleagues on the nation’s highest court and others in the federal judiciary that “this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the Court, was not reportable.” Thomas did not name the other justices or those in the judiciary with whom he had consulted. The nonprofit investigative journalism organization ProPublica reported Thursday that Thomas, who has been a justice for more than 31 years, has for more than two decades accepted luxury trips from Crow nearly every year. |
Dec 22, 2022: Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to grant Ohio’s petition for writ of certiorari in a case that could give states the authority to regulate railroad traffic and improve public safety, particularly at blocked crossings. Schmidt recently joined an amicus brief alongside a coalition of states supporting Ohio’s appeal of a lower-court ruling in a case involving CSX Transportation that struck down an Ohio law limiting how long a train could block a railroad crossing. The amicus brief in the case of Ohio v. CSX Transportation is available at https://bit.ly/3v6BIJG. |
Dec 29, 2022: AP: Ginni Thomas says she regrets post-election texts to Meadows
Virginia Thomas, the wife of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, says she regrets sending texts to then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows after the 2020 election, telling the House Jan. 6 committee that “I would take them all back if I could today.”
Virginia Thomas, the wife of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, says she regrets sending texts to then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows after the 2020 election, telling the House Jan. 6 committee that “I would take them all back if I could today.”
Dec 7, 2022: Verdict Justia: Can SCOTUS Prevent Free Speech from Swallowing Anti-discrimination Law?
On Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. As the case comes to the high Court, it presents a clash between a Colorado law forbidding places of public accommodation from discriminating based on sexual orientation and a conservative Christian web designer’s objection to creating material that, she says, tacitly expresses approval of same-sex marriage. Although the original complaint raised issues of both religious freedom and free speech, the Court took the case to decide the free speech question alone.
On Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. As the case comes to the high Court, it presents a clash between a Colorado law forbidding places of public accommodation from discriminating based on sexual orientation and a conservative Christian web designer’s objection to creating material that, she says, tacitly expresses approval of same-sex marriage. Although the original complaint raised issues of both religious freedom and free speech, the Court took the case to decide the free speech question alone.
Dec 5, 2022: NPR: Supreme Court hears clash between LGBTQ and business owners' rights
The U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments Monday in a potential landmark case that pits two cherished constitutional principles against each other. On one side are laws that guarantee same-sex couples equal access to all businesses that offer their services to the public. On the other are business owners who see themselves as artists and don't want to use their talents to express a message that they don't believe in.
The U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments Monday in a potential landmark case that pits two cherished constitutional principles against each other. On one side are laws that guarantee same-sex couples equal access to all businesses that offer their services to the public. On the other are business owners who see themselves as artists and don't want to use their talents to express a message that they don't believe in.
Dec 5, 2022: ScotusBlog: Will Jackson be the Supreme Court’s next great opponent of capital punishment?
With Breyer gone, who will emerge as the left’s chief critic of capital punishment? It may end up being his successor, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Jackson’s views on the death penalty were largely unknown when she was elevated to the high court. In her nine years as a lower-court judge, she never handled a death-penalty case, and she said little about the issue in her nomination hearings. But Jackson’s early work as a justice hints that she may take up Breyer’s mantle, just as Breyer took up Blackmun’s.
With Breyer gone, who will emerge as the left’s chief critic of capital punishment? It may end up being his successor, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Jackson’s views on the death penalty were largely unknown when she was elevated to the high court. In her nine years as a lower-court judge, she never handled a death-penalty case, and she said little about the issue in her nomination hearings. But Jackson’s early work as a justice hints that she may take up Breyer’s mantle, just as Breyer took up Blackmun’s.
Nov 17, 2022: CNN: Justice Department signals it plans to ask the Supreme Court to reinstate Biden’s student debt relief program
The Justice Department indicated in a court filing Thursday that it plans to ask the Supreme Court to reinstate the Biden administration’s student debt relief program.
“The government will be filing an application with the Supreme Court to vacate a separate injunction against the Secretary’s action entered by the Eighth Circuit earlier this week,” the DOJ said in the filing with US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which the administration asked to pause a lower court judge’s ruling striking down the policy.
In addition to that lower court decision, the 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the policy Monday.
The Justice Department indicated in a court filing Thursday that it plans to ask the Supreme Court to reinstate the Biden administration’s student debt relief program.
“The government will be filing an application with the Supreme Court to vacate a separate injunction against the Secretary’s action entered by the Eighth Circuit earlier this week,” the DOJ said in the filing with US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which the administration asked to pause a lower court judge’s ruling striking down the policy.
In addition to that lower court decision, the 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the policy Monday.
New York Times: Supreme Court Rules That Lindsey Graham Must Testify in Georgia Inquiry
“The lower courts assumed that the informal investigative fact finding that Senator Graham assertedly engaged in constitutes legislative activity protected by the speech or debate clause” of the Constitution, the order said, “and they held that Senator Graham may not be questioned about such activities.” 11.1.22
“The lower courts assumed that the informal investigative fact finding that Senator Graham assertedly engaged in constitutes legislative activity protected by the speech or debate clause” of the Constitution, the order said, “and they held that Senator Graham may not be questioned about such activities.” 11.1.22
Oct 9, 2020: Reporters Committee for Freedom of Press: Reporters Committee examines Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s record on press rights issues
On Sept. 26, President Donald Trump nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. As we have for past nominees, the Reporters Committee has reviewed Judge Barrett’s record and publications to develop a better understanding of her views on issues relevant to press rights.
On Sept. 26, President Donald Trump nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. As we have for past nominees, the Reporters Committee has reviewed Judge Barrett’s record and publications to develop a better understanding of her views on issues relevant to press rights.
NBC News: Supreme Court declines to block subpoena of Lindsey Graham in Georgia election probe 11.1.22
|
Reuters: U.S. court allows Justice Dept to fast-track appeal in Trump case
A U.S. appeals court on Wednesday agreed to fast-track a legal challenge to a third-party review of most of the records seized by the FBI from former President Donald Trump's home, after prosecutors complained the process is hampering their investigation. The decision by the Atlanta-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit represented a small victory for the Justice Department, which had sought an expedited appeal, and a blow to Trump, who had tried to slow-walk the litigation 10.5.22 |
The Supreme Court is just like a regular court but it comes with fries and a soda. 😉
October 5, 2022:
SCOTUS Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson tells the Alabama solicitor general that the Framers of the 14th Amendment did NOT intend it to be “race neutral or race blind." I have to agree with this. Lots of right wingers say they aren't racist because they "do not see color." Well, if they aren't blind then they CAN see color. They do and discriminate at will. 
NBC News: How the Supreme Court could change the internet as we know it
The Supreme Court this week opened the door to radically different ways of thinking about social media and the internet. The court is poised to hear as many as three cases this term about the legal protections that social media companies have used to become industry behemoths, and about the freewheeling latitude the companies now have over online speech, entertainment and information. 10.4.22 |
|
Recently Heard: Supreme Court with Justice Jackson faces major tests on race 10.3.22
