Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 01/09/2026 6:45:14 AM PST by CFW
The Supreme Court is expected to issue opinions this morning at 10:00 a.m. There is some speculation that the tariff opinion will be issued but that isn't a sure thing.
Scotusblog will be liveblogging the opinion release and we will be following along.
Here is the link to the pending cases for this term.
Of note from the oldest heard cases (the October sitting), are:
The conversion therapy case, Chiles v Salazar
Issue(s): Whether a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.
And, Louisiana v Callais
Issue(s): Whether Louisiana’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the 14th or 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
It's like a box of chocolates......
Thanks for doing this
SCOTUS ping!
Thanks. There’s a case I’m watching. Doubt it will come down today but one never knows.
L
:: The conversion therapy case, Chiles v Salazar ::
Here for the posting of an image of Jackie Chiles
Thanks for doing this.
You’re welcome.
I prepared the thread last night so that all I had to do this morning was proof read one more time and hit “post”. (Just in case I slept late.)
Praying for favor on the tariff ruling
Tariffs?
I think the President has a lot more going for his case than against.
Not today
Chocolate...suddenly an urge for chocolate...I’ll melt some dark, add butter and pecans...and enjoy my sugar high.
Ping
Ty!
We have one and only one opinion today. It is Bowe v. United States
It is by Justice Sotomayor. The vote is 5-4.
This is a case about a federal prisoner’s efforts to obtain post-conviction relief from a mandatory consecutive 10-year sentence imposed under a federal law.
(Sorry for the delay. My computer decided to reboot).
The court holds that a federal law that instructs courts to dismiss a claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application ... that was presented in a prior appplication” does not apply to motions filed by federal prisoners.
Here is the opinion.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-5438_o7kq.pdf
Welp, a boring day.
Maybe we will have another opinion day next week.
This one was a dud!
How about an opinion on whether it is legal for an ICE agent to defend his life against being run over?
100%. Including 5 previous rulings FOR tariffs
I think the President has a lot more going for his case than against.
I do as well. Many of the “legal minds” insisting otherwise are blinded by TDS.
They will likely rule against tariffs since they are working. The US trade deficit is the lowest it’s been since 2009. It’s also raised over $234 billion in revenues.
I do too. How can anyone say the President cannot declare an emergency when we’re paying $1 Trillion in debt service
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.