Posted on 05/29/2025 6:51:59 AM PDT by CFW
The Supreme Court will be issuing Opinions from the October 2024 term this morning at 10:00 a.m.
A list of those cases can be found here:
Scotusblog will be live-blogging the Opinion release and we will be following along and trying to make sense of the Court's rulings.
There are also several pending cases on the Emergency Docket. Those can be found here:
Once an Opinion has been announced from the bench it will be posted on the Supreme Court's website located here:
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
SCOTUS ping!
We have the first Opinion by Kavanaugh.
Sotomayor, Jackson, Kagan concur. Gorsuch recused.
It was an 8-0 opinion reversing the D.C. circuit court’s order.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-975_m648.pdf
Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, No. 23-975 [Arg: 12.10.2024 ]
Issue(s): Whether the National Environmental Policy Act requires an agency to study environmental impacts beyond the proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority.
“We reverse. First, the D. C. Circuit did not afford the Board the substantial judicial deference required in NEPA cases.
Second, the D. C. Circuit ordered the Board to address the environmental effects of projects separate in time or place from the construction and operation of the railroad line. But NEPA requires agencies to focus on the environmental effects of the project at issue.
Under NEPA, the Board’s EIS did not need to address the environmental effects of upstream oil drilling or downstream oil refining. Rather, it needed to address only the effects of the 88-mile railroad line. And the Board’s EIS did so.”
And that’s it. Only one opinion for today.
To bad. A dozen or more lower court smack downs like this would be a good start.
LOL! I keep refreshing the supreme court’s Order page periodically throughout the day to see if anything has come down on the Emergency docket.
I can’t believe SCOTUS has actually allowed this to go on for so long. Chief Roberts has worked so hard to cement his court’s “legacy” only to let his political bias to almost destroy the reputation of the court.
Yep, that’s just my opinion, man!
"Issue(s): Whether the National Environmental Policy Act requires an agency to study environmental impacts beyond the proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority."
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
The post-FDR era, deep state Supreme Court unsurprisingly seems to never check the Constitution for an express delegation of power that reasonably justifies a challenged federal law or action.
In this example, activist justices blatantly ignore that the states have never expressly constitutional given the big bad feds the specific power to police the environment, the EPA and its edicts based on stolen state powers imo.
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Major Supreme Court 10A-ignoring corruption probably got started when FDR era, state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices politically repealed the 10th Amendment (10A) in Wickard v. Filburn imo.
More specifically, using inappropriate (imo) terms like "concept" and "implicit," here is what was left of 10A-protected state powers after FDR's state sovereignty-ignoring justices had effectively reduced that amendment to an old wives' tale when they wrongly decided Wickard v. Filburn in Congress's favor imo.
"In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was "necessary and proper" to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept [??? all emphases added] of sovereignty thought to be implicit [???] in the status of statehood. Certain activities such as "production," manufacturing, and "mining" were occasionally said to be within the province of state governments and beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause." —Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.
In fact, St. George Tucker, a respected constitutional expert in American Revolution times, had lamented the following troubling dominos effect pattern in the legal system. The legal system (unthinkingly?) occasionally resorts to applying common law to decide cases, precedent-setting legal decisions ultimately weakening constitutional limits on federal powers which likewise weakens our constitutional protections (my words).
"If it were, in fact, an unconstitutional exercise of power in congress to pass a law establishing the bank, nothing can manifest the impropriety of over-stepping the limits of the constitution, more than the act which we have just noticed. It shows that the most unauthorised acts of government may be drawn into precedents to justify other unwarrantable usurpations [emphasis added]." —Article 1, Section 8, Clause 6, St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries 1:App. 262--64, 1803.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.