Free Republic

By now, you’ve probably seen the giddy headlines from America’s propaganda media about the U.S. Supreme Court declining to take up a case that sought to overturn so-called “gay marriage.”“BREAKING: The Supreme Court rejects a call to overturn its decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide,” an Associated Press tweet with more than 21,000 likes reads. “Supreme Court rejects challenge to landmark same-sex marriage decision,” a USA Today headline blared. This “breaking news” is in response to an order list published by the Supreme Court on Monday detailing which cases it will and will not be taking up during its ongoing 2025-2026...

ROLLINS, SEC. OF AGRIC., ET AL. V. RI COUNCIL OF CHURCHES, ET AL. The application for stay presented to Justice Jackson is referred to the Court. The administrative stay entered on November 7, 2025, is hereby extended until 11:59 p.m. (EST) on November 13, 2025. Justice Jackson would deny the request for extension of the administrative stay and would deny the application

President Donald Trump said on Monday that the United States faces an economic and national security catastrophe if the Supreme Court nullifies his use of an emergency powers statute to place tariffs on most nations. Trump also said his administration is looking into $2,000 stipends to lower- and middle-income Americans through tariff dividends, as well as paying off the national debt. “All money left over from the $2000 payments made to low and middle income USA Citizens, from the massive Tariff Income pouring into our Country from foreign countries, which will be substantial, will be used to SUBSTANTIALLY PAY DOWN...

It was no surprise this morning when the Supreme Court turned away a petition that asked, as one part of a case, to overturn its same-sex marriage decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. Or at least, it was only a surprise if you were reading breathless coverage driven by progressive activists in the media. There are two potential arguments for taking a case to consider overturning Obergefell, and they are serious ones. One is that the decision itself is legally nonsensical, undemocratic, and should never have come out the way it did. Without rehashing all of those arguments here -- see...

The Supreme Court on Monday morning turned down a request from Kim Davis, a former county clerk in Kentucky, to reconsider its 2015 decision recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. In a brief, unsigned order, the justices rejected Davis’ petition for review of a ruling by a federal appeals court upholding an award of $100,000 to a gay couple to whom she had refused to issue a marriage license. That petition had also asked the justices to overrule the 2015 decision, Obergefell v. Hodges, arguing that a right to same-sex marriage “had no basis in the Constitution.” As is...

Below is my column in the Hill on moments of honesty after the recent Democratic victories in California, Virginia, New Jersey, and New York. In the euphoria that followed, Democratic politicians and pundits admitted that they intend to pursue radical changes, including packing the Supreme Court, once they retake power. Here is the column: “In vino veritas.” The Roman proverb — “In wine, there is truth” — reflects the fact that people are often at their most honest when they’ve had a few. Elections can have the same effect for some to become drunk on even the prospect of power....

The court agreed to hear the matter after the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the law in 2024. The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a case addressing whether states may count ballots that arrive after Election Day. The Republican National Committee and Mississippi Libertarian Party challenged the state's law permitting the counting of ballots postmarked by Election Day should they arrive within five days, Politico reported. The court agreed to hear the matter after the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the law in 2024. President Donald Trump, for his part, has long been a...

The Supreme Court on Monday declined an opportunity to overturn its landmark precedent recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, tossing aside an appeal that had roiled LGBTQ advocates who feared the conservative court might be ready to revisit the decade-old decision. Instead, the court denied an appeal from Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who now faces hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages and legal fees for refusing to issue marriage licenses after the court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges allowed same-sex couples to marry. The court did not explain its reasoning to deny the appeal, which...

On Nov. 7, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider taking up a landmark case that could redefine the meaning of parental rights in public education. The case, Littlejohn v. School Board of Leon County, has the potential to impact every classroom in the United States..

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson temporarily halted an order requiring the Trump administration make full Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) November payments by Friday. Jackson’s ruling pauses some of the payments until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit can decide the administration’s motion to block the order pending its appeal. It does not reflect a ruling on the underlying legal merits of the case, but it provides a temporary reprieve to the Trump administration, which went to the Supreme Court earlier Friday evening. “Given the First Circuit’s representations, an administrative stay is required to facilitate the...

BREAKING: Supreme Court issues emergency order temporarily blocking full SNAP food aid payments - AP

The Trump administration on Friday appealed to the Supreme Court after an appeals court ordered the government to fully fund food stamps for November. The First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday ordered the U.S. Department of Agriculture to begin taking steps to fully cover Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program payments by the end of the day Friday, CBS News reported. The appeals court had denied the administration's request for a temporary administrative stay of a lower court order, adding that it is still considering the Justice Department's request for longer relief while it considers the appeal. "The core power...

The most important thing to know about the Trump administration’s defense of its hotly contested use of tariffs to bring allies and opponents to heel is not that it is a novel and unprecedented legal argument but rather a full-throated articulation of the campaign themes that got the president elected – in both 2016 and 2000. In its legal documents, and in the oral arguments that took place before the Supreme Court Wednesday, the Trump administration paints a picture of America under siege. Once thriving industrial towns in the Midwest hollowed out. Factories dismantled as supply chains have been moved...

Yet another win at SCOTUS for Trump (6 - 3) with the three far left witches voting against Trump as usual. This is the 24th SCOTUS win for Trump. This ruling reaffirmed Trump's EO banning giving out US passports with transgender, non binary designations. US passports will be male or female and that's it.Also some district judge ruled Trump pay SNAP in full despite Shutdown, which Trump DOJ quickly appealed to SCOTUS. Trump will probably win that one too.

The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed President Donald Trump’s administration to enforce a policy blocking transgender and nonbinary people from choosing passport sex markers that align with their gender identity. The decision is Trump’s latest win on the court's emergency docket, and allows the administration to enforce the policy while a lawsuit over it plays out. It halts a lower-court order requiring the government to keep letting people choose male, female or X on their passport to line up with their gender identity on new or renewed passports. The court’s three liberal justices dissented

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed the Trump administration to enforce a policy aimed at limiting transgender rights that would restrict sex designations on passports to “male” and “female” based on sex assigned at birth. The justices granted an emergency request filed by the administration, which is seeking to reverse a policy introduced during the Biden administration that allowed people to put “X” as a gender marker or self-select male or female. "Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth—in both cases, the Government is merely attesting to...

President Donald Trump has picked up a big win at the U.S. Supreme Court on a key issue driving his presidency. The court annulled a lower court injunction that was obstructing the president from revoking the protected legal status of hundreds of thousands of migrants presently living in the United States. The ruling was 8–1 in support of the president’s position, with the sole dissent originating from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, appointed by former President Joe Biden. The ruling facilitates the Trump administration’s efforts to revoke Biden-era Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for approximately 300,000 Venezuelan migrants residing in the U.S.....

President Donald Trump's use of sweeping tariffs faced sharp questioning at the Supreme Court on Wednesday, in a case with major implications for the president's agenda and the global economy. A majority of justices, including several conservatives, expressed doubts about the White House's justification of the import duties, which the president has said are necessary to restore America's manufacturing base and fix its trade imbalance. The measures are being challenged by a number of small businesses and a group of states, which contend that the president has overstepped his authority in imposing the levies, which are in effect a tax....

In the most significant economic case to reach the Supreme Court in years, Trump’s authority to issue emergency tariffs faced deep skepticism from key conservatives — including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. • While justices had tough questions for both sides, a majority expressed reservations about the administration relying on declared emergencies to issue the unchecked tariffs. • As plaintiffs presented their case, Kavanaugh repeatedly noted that courts had previously allowed then-President Richard Nixon to use similar emergency powers to impose tariffs during his administration. • Both sides previously framed the...

Beginning at 9:30 a.m., we will be live blogging as the court hears oral arguments in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump.