I thought you'd enjoy this:
Posted on 06/27/2025 6:45:13 AM PDT by CFW
The Supreme Court will be announcing Opinions from the bench of cases from the October 2024 term this morning at 10:00.
There are five cases remaining plus the immigration case from the Emergency Docket.
Scotusblog will be liveblogging the Opinion release and we will be following along and trying to make sense of the court's decisions.
Besides the immigration/national injunctions case of Trump v. CASA, there is the case of Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton:
Issue(s): Whether the court of appeals erred as a matter of law in applying rational-basis review, instead of strict scrutiny, to a law burdening adults' access to protected speech.
and
Mahmoud v. Taylor
Issue(s): Whether public schools burden parents' religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents' religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out.
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
Next is Mahmoud v. Taylor.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-297_4f14.pdf
This case is about whether parents have a right to opt their children out of instruction using LGBTQ+ themed storybooks.
The vote is 6-3. Sotomayor dissents, joined by Kagan and Jackson.
Alito holds that the parents in this case are likely to succeed in their challenge to the school board’s policies foreclosing the opt-out option.
The court first holds that the parents are likely to succeed on their claim that the policy of not allowing opt-outs unconstitutionally burdens their exercise of their religion.
Sotomayor: The reverberations of the Court’s error will be felt, I fear,for generations. Unable to condone that grave misjudg-ment, I dissent.
Good news for parents. This should have been a no-brainer.
Which of course is why Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson dissented. They have no brains.
The court first holds that the parents are likely to succeed on their claim that the policy of not allowing opt-outs unconstitutionally burdens their exercise of their religion.
“We have long recognized,” Alito writes, “the rights of parents to direct ‘the religious upbringing’ of their children. And we have held that those rights are violated by government policies that substantially interfere with the religious development of children.”
How could anyone dissent in this case?
Next is Mahmoud v. Taylor.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-297_4f14.pdf
This case is about whether parents have a right to opt their children out of instruction using LGBTQ+ themed storybooks.
The vote is 6-3. Sotomayor dissents, joined by Kagan and Jackson.
This is more good news!!
“Looks like great news, almost worthy of a “BOOM” or “BOMBSHELL”... :)”
Sometimes booms and bombshells are good!
I’m trying to post the info as fast as it is released. We still have a couple of opinions to go.
In the school case, Alito states, “based on the record before us, the court says, the Board’s introduction of the LGBTQ-themed storybooks and the failure to provide notice and opt-out options for parents meets that test: it does interfere with the children’s religious development and imposes a burden on religious exercise.”
The court rejects the Fourth Circuit’s suggestion that the record in the case was too thin to show a burden on the parents’ religious exercise.
At the end, the court says that while the case moves forward in the lower courts — “until all appellate review in this case is completed, the Board should be ordered to notify them in advance whenever one of the books in question or any other similar book is to be used in any way and to allow them to have their children excused from that instruction.”
Agreed - some good BOOMs today!
Thanks for the updates. Looks to have been a generally good day on the Court.
More good news than bad thus far today.
Sotomayor’s dissent starts by quoting from a 1987 opinion describing public schools as “at once the symbol of our democracy and the most pervasive means for promoting our common destiny.”
But that idea “will become a mere memory,” she argues, “if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents’ religious beliefs.”
Poor Sotomayor.
We are still waiting on the Louisiana redistricting case and the Free Speech v. Paxton case. Those will be from either Roberts, Thomas,or Alito
“Thanks for the updates. Looks to have been a generally good day on the Court.”
It HAS been a pretty good day thus far.
I look forward to reading the opinions of the Opinions from those such as Jonathan Turley and other legal professionals who are non-partisan in their views on law.
Waiting on the next case.
Still waiting on Sotomayor to finish reading her dissent I guess.
And we now have the Free Speech Coalition v Paxton case. It is by Justice Thomas.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1122_3e04.pdf
THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., ALITO, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. KAGAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR and JACKSON, JJ., joined. (of course).
The court upholds Texas’s age-verification law for porn sites.
We have “R” numbers. So we aren’t going to get the Louisiana case today.
It will be re-argued next term.
“In due course,” the court says, it will “issue an order scheduling argument and specifying any additional questions to be addressed in supplemental briefing.”
The Louisiana legislature drew a map in 2024 that created a second majority Black district. A group of “non-African American” voters contended that the new map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
So we will have rearguments on that issue next term (begins October 2025).
Justice Thomas dissents from the decision to have reargument in Louisiana v. Callais.
So, that’s all the decisions for this term unless we get something from the Emergency docket.
SCOTUS will release orders next Monday and Thursday at 9:30.
That’s all folks!
I’ll post any articles I run across regarding today’s decisions this afternoon.
“SCOTUS conservatives issue scathing rebuke of Justice Jackson in injunctions ruling”
Supreme Court curbs injunctions that blocked Trump’s birthright citizenship plan
Great news! Ty for all you do!
I thought you'd enjoy this:
I really feel for her. I think that it's time that she resigns in protest. That will really get everyone's attention.
Article from Scotusblog on today’s nationwide injunctions ruling:
“Supreme Court sides with Trump administration on nationwide injunctions in birthright citizenship case”
And here is a piece by Ilya Somin of Reason. He is an “open borders for all” law professor who also suffers from a severe case of TDS.
“A Bad Decision on Nationwide Injunctions”
Just Hours After SCOTUS Ruling, They Filed Another Challenge to Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order
“Well, that didn’t take long. Just hours after the Supreme Court ruled against nationwide injunctions, the group that sued the White House over President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship has filed another lawsuit challenging the order.
The majority asserted that the power to issue broad rulings must align with what courts were allowed to do at the time the Constitution and the Judiciary Act of 1789 were established. However, the ruling still allows for class-action lawsuits to be filed. Plaintiffs must go through the proper process for filing such a legal action.
That’s exactly what CASA, the nonprofit immigrant advocacy group that sued the administration, is trying to do. In an emergency court filing, the organization and other plaintiffs are asking the US District Court in Maryland to block Trump’s Executive Order denying birthright citizenship to children born in the US after February 19, 2025.”
Link to Emergency Motion:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.574698/gov.uscourts.mdd.574698.98.0.pdf
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.