Free Republic

...In a newly filed brief at the Supreme Court, the Trump admin. isn’t arguing politics or modern talking points, like so many experts thought they would... They’re arguing history. And once you see what they put on the record, it’ll be clear to you why this entire “birthright” debate has been shut down for so long.What Team Trump put in front of the Supreme Court of the United States was a very long paper trail showing how birthright citizenship has been understood for decades after the 14th Amendment was ratified... The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that anyone born on US...

Advocates and legal experts urged the U.S. Supreme Court to adopt uniform gun laws across the country after justices heard arguments in a case on whether to uphold Hawaii's gun control law. Wolford v. Lopez challenges a Hawaii law that prevents concealed carry permit holders from going to gas stations, bars, restaurants that serve alcohol, beaches and public parks without written or verbal consent from the property owner. During the arguments on Tuesday, several gun rights advocates came out to the steps of the Supreme Court to express support for Second Amendment protections. “Private property owners certainly have the right...

WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell will attend the Supreme Court’s oral argument Wednesday in a case involving the attempted firing of Fed governor Lisa Cook, an unusual show of support by the central bank chair. The high court is considering whether President Donald Trump can fire Cook, as he said he would do in late August, in an unprecedented attempt to remove one of the seven members of the Fed’s governing board. Powell plans to attend the high court’s Wednesday session, according to a person familiar with the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity. It’s a...

Last Wednesday, January 14, 2026, in a little-noticed Supreme Court decision, Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the 7-2 majority opinion in Michael J. Bost et al., Petitioners v. Illinois State Board of Elections, et al. That case saw Illinois Congressman Michael Bost challenge an Illinois State Board of Elections rule that “requires election officials to count mail-in ballots postmarked or certified no later than election day and received within two weeks of election day.” Remarkably, the decision reversed the trend, which has predominated since 2020, of federal and state courts denying standing to petitioners who argue that state board of...

Carrie Severino nailed it with one line: Because apparently, in 2026, we’re now shopping for constitutional guidance in the same aisle as Jim Crow. During Supreme Court arguments on gun laws, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested that the Black Codes should count as part of constitutional history. You know, those charming post Civil War laws written specifically to make sure freed slaves stayed powerless, disarmed, and miserable. But don’t worry. According to this logic, since they existed “back then,” they deserve a seat at the grown ups’ table. Never mind that their entire purpose was to crush civil rights. History...

President Trump’s power over the Federal Reserve will be front and center at the Supreme Court next week. The justices on Wednesday will hear arguments on whether Trump can fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook over accusations of mortgage fraud. Looming over it all is the Justice Department’s criminal investigation into Jerome Powell, the Fed’s chair, which came into public view last weekend.

🚨 JUST IN: Hakeem Jeffries is FUMING after the Supreme Court handed Republicans a BIG WIN. The Court ruled states can challenge the counting of late mail-in ballots submitted up to TWO WEEKS after Election Day. Jeffries melts down: “They will PREVENT a FREE AND FAIR ELECTION in 2026! Or they’d LOSE!” Translation: If Democrats can’t count ballots forever, they panic. If elections have rules, they scream. If fraud gets challenged, they cry “democracy.” Secure elections terrify them. Deadlines terrify them. Transparency terrifies them. CRY MORE.

The Supreme Court handed a crushing blow to the radical left’s ballot-harvesting machine on Wednesday. In a stunning 7-2 decision, the High Court ruled that Republican Congressman Mike Bost (R-IL) has the legal standing to challenge Illinois’s unconstitutional law that allows mail-in ballots to be counted up to 14 days after Election Day. This ruling reverses the Seventh Circuit and sends the case back to the lower court—where Illinois’ late-ballot scheme will now be evaluated on the merits This is the game-changer we have been waiting for. For years, Democrats and their media allies have relied on “late-arriving ballots” to...

I don’t think anyone would confuse Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson with a sharp legal mind. She often comes across as the poster child for what’s wrong with DEI hires. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Little v. Hecox, a case that will likely decide whether laws barring biological males from competing on girls’ sports teams are constitutional. Given that Jackson famously admitted during her confirmation hearings that she didn’t know what a woman was — because, as she put it, she’s “not a biologist” — you knew she was bound to be a real spectacle. And true...

At one point during their pro-trans boys in girls’ locker/bathrooms argument, the ACLU lawyer Kathleen Hartnett was asked by Justice Samuel Alito to define a man, boy, woman, or girl. Hartnett appeared to panic as she realized Alito had brilliantly set a trap for her. Unable to answer the question, Hartnett appears to panic, telling him “they” don’t have a definition.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed Rep. Mike Bost’s lawsuit challenging his home state of Illinois’ mail-in ballot policy to move forward, issuing an opinion that could have major implications for future elections. In a 7–2 decision, the high court determined that Bost (R-Ill.) and the others who joined his suit have standing to sue despite lower courts concluding that they hadn’t provided evidence of harm. “Candidates have a concrete and particularized interest in the rules that govern the counting of votes in their elections, regardless of whether those rules harm their electoral prospects or increase the cost of their...

President Trump declared Monday that the US would be “screwed” if the Supreme Court rules against his reciprocal tariff policies — arguing the feds would have to “pay back” billions in revenue collected over the past year. “[I]f the Supreme Court rules against the United States of America on this National Security bonanza, WE’RE SCREWED!” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “The actual numbers that we would have to pay back if, for any reason, the Supreme Court were to rule against the United States of America on Tariffs, would be many Hundreds of Billions of Dollars,” he wrote. “[A]nd that...

The Supreme Court released opinions in three cases this morning.The first case is by Justice Jackson in Barrett v US, a case about whether a defendant who commits a single act that violates two separate provisions of 18 USC 924 can be convicting under only one provision or the other, or instead can be convicted under two.The court holds that Congress did not clearly authorize convictions under both.Barrett opinionNext in Case v. Montana, by Kagan, the Court ruled:"The court holds that the "objective reasonableness" standard for warrantless entries to render emergency aid applies "without further gloss." And it was satisfied...

Summary Challenge was made by a group of 75 abuse survivors Settlement was reached in bankruptcy court in 2022Jan 12 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear a challenge to the Boy Scouts of America's landmark $2.46 billion settlement of sex abuse claims in a case ​involving a group of abuse survivors who wanted to pursue lawsuits against churches and other organizations that ran scouting programs where ‌abuse occurred.The Boy Scouts organization, now called Scouting America, said after the court's action on Monday that it can now continue compensating abuse survivors and improving its scouting programs...

SummaryChallengers say bans violate Constitution and Title IX law Arguments involve laws passed in West Virginia and Idaho Trump backs states in crackdown on transgender athletes

During Supreme Court oral arguments for the West Virginia v B.P.J. case on trans athletes in women's sports, American Civil Liberties Attorney Joshua Block suggested that "sex" should not be defined legally. Block then fled questioning when asked to elaborate why after the hearing. Block represents West Virginia trans teen Becky Pepper-Jackson, who in 2021 sued the state to block its law that prohibits biological males from competing in girls' sports. Pepper-Jackson and her mother were in the courtroom on Tuesday to watch the attorney argue the definition of sex should not be used in the court's ruling. Block's statement...

The dumbest Supreme Court Justice once again humiliated the legendary institution with not only her ignorance of the case at hand but with a question that resembled Kamal Harris’s worst word salads. The embarrassment was so severe that Justice Neil Gorsuch had to step in at one point. As CBS reported, the Supreme Court heard arguments on Tuesday on whether laws from Idaho and West Virginia that ban biological males from playing in girls’ and women’s sports violate the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection and the landmark law known as Title IX. Two bio males, Lindsay Hecox of Idaho and...

The Supreme Court has just now started oral arguments in the transgender case.Little v Hecox.Issue: Whether laws that seek to protect women's and girls' sports by limiting participation to women and girls based on sex violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. You can listen to the arguments here:Supreme Court audioSCOTUSblog is livestreaming it at their website. SCOTUS oral argument scotusblog.com

(Note: I re-edited this and removed all the time stamping from the YouTube rolling transcript so errors may be present.) The Supreme Court just issued a 6-3 emergency ruling that's sending shock waves through Washington and every state capital right now. This decision could fundamentally reshape federal power versus state sovereignty. THE EMERGENCY RULING BREAKDOWN The emergency ruling breakdown. Here's what actually went down late last night. The Supreme Court released a 6-3 emergency decision that directly challenges how federal courts have been operating for the past two decades. The majority opinion makes it clear that lower court judges no...

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. Pending cases 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...