Free Republic

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was a larger-than-life figure. Which is why it’s hard to believe that Friday, Feb. 13, 2026, marks 10 years since his passing. Often viewed as a chief pioneer of the modern originalist movement, Scalia was instrumental in laying the groundwork necessary for restoring proper jurisprudence to an institution that had swayed from its intended purpose. With his crafty wit and skilled penmanship, the Reagan appointee authored some of the most thought-provoking and memorable legal opinions in the court’s recent history. Encapsulating the best moments from Scalia’s nearly 30-year Supreme Court career into one article is...

Their revolution could soon be coming to an end. January 3, 2026. Caracas. 2:47 AM. The helicopters had come in low over the Caribbean, running dark. The Delta Force operators on board were well-rehearsed. By 3:29 AM, it was over. Thirty-two Cuban bodyguards lay dead in the compound. Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores were in flex cuffs, hustled onto a transport aircraft bound for New York. At Mar-a-Lago, President Trump watched the operation unfold in real time with his national security team. It was January 3—exactly 36 years to the day since American forces had extracted military dictator Manuel...

(Jan. 26, 2026) — INTRODUCTION As dedicated P&E readers are well aware, there is now pending in the Supreme Court the case of Trump v. Barbara. The case involves a challenge to President Trump’s Executive Order 14160 regarding the meaning of “birthright citizenship” under the 14th Amendment. Following a post by the intrepid P&E Editor here, your humble servant addressed the issue here. The Supreme Court granted certiorari review as to one of the two cases where President Trump had petitioned for review on Dec. 5, 2025. Now, the matter is proceeding before the Court through briefing of the merits...

Remember during Covid when liberals kept insisting that they were the ones who believed in "THE Science?" Well now that "THE Science" has proved to become politically inconvenient for them we see the hilarious spectacle of those same liberals denying basic science such as during a recent Senate hearing when a leftist doctor refused to answer the simple question of "Can men get pregnant?"We can now also see that same pathetic denial of obvious scientific reality taking effect in the current arguments surrounding the Supreme Court case about upholding state bans of biological males aka trans-women participating in women's sports....

A beautiful woman scorned by a former lover, a hot-headed husband intent on defending his wife's honor, and a Deputy U.S. Marshal assigned to protect a Supreme Court Justice came together in an explosive confrontation on August 14, 1889, in the Lathrop, California, railway station in the San Joaquin Valley. The result was a dead husband, an insane wife, and a landmark Supreme Court decision that substantially expanded the powers of the executive branch and affirmed the authority for U. S. Marshals and their Deputies to use force in the performance of their lawful duties.

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...

(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...

CBS News’ chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford criticized the mainstream media’s coverage of the Supreme Court, calling it “dangerous” to claim the high court was “corrupt.” Crawford joined CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday to discuss what the panel considered the most underreported stories of the year. While some panelists cited the blanket use of pardons and cuts to the federal workforce as examples, Crawford instead pointed to a narrative she considered overreported: alleged political corruption in the Supreme Court. “You know, there is a narrative that the Supreme Court is corrupt,” Crawford said. “I mean, we saw that emerge...

(Dec. 29, 2025) — New York State resident and registered voter Montgomery Blair Sibley, who challenged the claimed “natural born Citizen” status of former Vice President Kamala Harris, reported Monday on his Substack and website that the U.S. Supreme Court has docketed his petition for a Writ of Certiorari in his long-running “eligibility” case. The action came after Sibley appealed a dismissal from the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court. ... continue reading at: https://www.thepostemail.com/2025/12/29/scotus-dockets-harris-eligibility-case/

Howard Dean has decried Ruth Bader Ginsberg as a right winger. John Kerry is demanding that the White House release Supreme Court nominee John Roberts’ records in total. And Teddy Kennedy, well, Teddy continues to talk out of both sides of his mouth. If it were possible to hear “eyes roll” the sound would have thundered across the country with each one of these statements. Whether it is their manipulation of our nation’s sitcom attention span or the elite media’s bent agenda is irrelevant. The Democratic “sideshow barkers” are getting away with it. Recently, at one of his many anger-fests...

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argued that the president of the United States should not be able to fire government experts such as scientists, doctors, economists, and PhDs, and she claimed it is “not in the best interest” of American citizens. During oral arguments for Trump v. Slaughter, while talking to U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, Jackson said she did “not understand” why “agencies aren’t answering to Congress.” Jackson pointed out that “Congress established them and can eliminate them.” The oral arguments come after the Supreme Court, in September, allowed President Donald Trump to remove Rebecca Kelly Slaughter,...

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES — Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch dismantled a lawyer’s illogical arguments about a president’s executive power during a high-stakes Supreme Court hearing on Monday. The moment came during oral arguments for Trump v. Slaughter, a case centered around President Trump’s firing of Rebecca Slaughter, a Democrat member of the Federal Trade Commission. As The Federalist previously reported, the high court will weigh the constitutionality of statutory limitations on a president’s ability to remove members of so-called “independent agencies” and whether to overturn longstanding precedent established in its 1935 Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S. decision. During his...

Abortion, religion, and race were the three intractable constitutional law conundrums of the second half of the 20th century. Back in the 1960s and ’70s, the justices of the Warren and Burger Supreme Courts felt compelled to step in and resolve them, though their constitutional warrant so to do was anything but clear. As readers of this magazine are well aware, for decades American society has been roiled by what we are slowly coming to see as the Supreme Court’s unwarranted judicial audacity—if not impudence, arrogance, and illegitimacy. Since Richard Nixon’s campaign in 1968, Republicans have been seeking to...

Legal conservatives find themselves in an unusual position: originalism has reached unprecedented acceptance within the judiciary and the bar. A majority of Supreme Court justices—including at least one appointed by a Democratic president—identify as originalists, or at least strive toward originalism. Guided by the original understanding of those who ratified the Constitution and the Reconstruction Amendments, the High Court has overruled Roe v. Wade, ended the use of race in higher education, and recognized the individual right to own firearms. But some find these successes disorienting. Originalism’s victories have triggered an important debate among conservatives. Some wonder if originalism is...

Could the Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) protection of the National Firearms Act (NFA) in Silencer Shop v BATF be a tactical move to bring the case to the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court case United States v Windsor upended centuries of precedent and jurisprudence in the United States by finding a key part of the Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional. The Obama administration played a key part in this policy shift by claiming the act was constitutional, thus protecting “standing” in the case. Later, the Obama DOJ switched sides and agreed with Windsor that the Defense of...

The Supreme Court on Friday said it will hear arguments in a case that will determine if President Donald Trump can undo automatic citizenship for people born in the United States. Trump, on his first day back in the White House on Jan. 20, issued an executive order that said babies born in the U.S. more than 30 days after that order were not entitled to be issued citizenship documents if their parents were temporary visitors or illegal aliens.

On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Trump v. Slaughter, the case challenging limitations on the President's ability to remove members of the Federal Trade Commission. In resolving this question, the Court will consider whether to narrow or overrule Humphrey's Executor. Perhaps to aid in the Court's deliberations, today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit decided the combined cases of Harris v. Bessent and Wilcox v. Trump, concerning the limitations on removal of members of the Merit System Protection Board and National Labor Relations Board. In Harris, a divided panel concluded that the President...

Licenses Delayed, Rights Denied is a scholarly article that informs readers of the means six outlier states use to deny ordinary citizens their rights to keep and bear arms. The article is another excellent example of scholarship by Mark Smith, member of the Supreme Court Bar, distinguished Second Amendment scholar, and host of the Four Boxes Diner on YouTube. He is also a contributor at AmmoLand.com. The article has been published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy: Per Curiam, Fall of 2025, No. 23. The six states that are actively working to undermine the Bruen methodology are...

Since the late 19th century, school yearbooks have been a ubiquitous and mostly unchanging element of American school life. Decade after decade, they deliver a predictable mix of class, club, and team photos, cheesy graphics, and cringey comments. But the most consistent feature of yearbooks may be what they don’t include—references to political upheaval or resistance movements. As public schools across the United States face heightened censorship and the threat of funding losses for noncompliance, school yearbooks remind us that there is nothing new about political censorship in schools. A few rare examples also reveal that there some students and...

Justice Elena Kagan emerged as an unexpected critic of New Jersey’s position Tuesday as the Supreme Court weighed whether a faith-based crisis pregnancy center may challenge a state subpoena in federal court. Her pointed questioning suggested she may join the court’s conservatives in siding with First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, which argues that New Jersey’s investigation threatens its First Amendment rights. Why It Matters The case stems from a subpoena issued by Democratic Attorney General Matthew Platkin’s consumer-protection division, seeking information from First Choice—including a list of its donors—as part of a probe into whether the center misled women about...