Latest news with #justices
New York Times
12 hours ago
- Politics
- New York Times
Birthright Citizenship Case Has Some Unusual Quirks
The birthright citizenship case is unusual, and not only because it is not really about birthright citizenship. At the case's argument in May, the justices mostly focused on whether injunctions entered by three federal trial judges blocking President Trump's plan to end the practice were too broad. But when the court set this case down for argument, it did not grant review of a petition. That meant it was hard to know the precise question before the court. That's because the case lacked the 'question presented' that must appear on the first page of petitions seeking Supreme Court review. When the justices agree to hear a case, they do so to resolve the question on the petition. But in this case, the court did something quite unusual: It agreed to hear arguments on three emergency applications seeking partial stays of the injunctions. Such emergency applications do not typically include a 'question presented' page, and the three at issue in the birthright citizenship cases did not. Such applications, moreover, are all but uniformly handled by the justices based only on written filings, without oral argument. Not this time. The case was unusual in another way. The justices scheduled arguments at a special session of the court, in May, about two weeks after the last day for argument noted on the court's annual calendar. Hearing arguments on days other than those on the court's calendar is rare, though there have been scattered exceptions. The court added a day last year in April, for instance, to consider the case on presidential immunity. Hearing arguments after April is especially uncommon. There were arguments in May 2020, as the coronavirus was raging and the justices questioned lawyers by phone. But even those arguments concluded on May 13. Indeed, it has not been since 2010 that the court heard an argument so late in the term, which as a formal matter lasts from the first Monday in October until the day before the following one. That year, the justices scheduled a special session in September to hear a second argument in the Citizens United campaign finance case, acting fast because the law at issue required the court 'to expedite to the greatest possible extent' any challenges.
Al Arabiya
14 hours ago
- Politics
- Al Arabiya
Supreme Court OKs Fee That Subsidizes Phone, Internet Services in Schools, Libraries and Rural Areas
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the fee that is added to phone bills to provide billions of dollars a year in subsidized phone and internet services in schools, libraries, and rural areas. The justices, by a 6–3 vote, reversed an appeals court ruling that had struck down as unconstitutional the Universal Service Fund, the charge that has been added to phone bills for nearly 30 years. At arguments in March, liberal and conservative justices alike expressed concerns about the potentially devastating consequences of eliminating the fund, which has benefited tens of millions of Americans. The Federal Communications Commission collects the money from telecommunications providers, which pass the cost on to their customers. A Virginia-based conservative advocacy group, Consumers' Research, had challenged the practice. The justices had previously denied two appeals from Consumers' Research after federal appeals courts upheld the program. But the full 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals, among the nation's most conservative, ruled 9–7 that the method of funding is unconstitutional. The 5th Circuit held that Congress had given too much authority to the FCC, and the agency, in turn, had ceded too much power to a private entity or administrator. The last time the Supreme Court invoked what is known as the nondelegation doctrine to strike down a federal law was in 1935. But several conservative justices have suggested they are open to breathing new life into the legal doctrine. The conservative-led court also has reined in federal agencies in high-profile rulings in recent years. Last year, the court reversed a 40-year-old case that had been used thousands of times to uphold federal regulations. In 2022, the court ruled Congress has to act with specificity before agencies can address major questions in a ruling that limited the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to combat climate change. But the phone fee case turned out not to be the right one for finding yet another way to restrict federal regulators. President Donald Trump's Republican administration, which has moved aggressively to curtail administrative agencies in other areas, defended the FCC program. The appeal was initially filed by President Joe Biden's Democratic administration.
The Independent
14 hours ago
- Business
- The Independent
Supreme Court OKs fee that subsidizes phone, internet services in schools, libraries and rural areas
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the fee that is added to phone bills to provide billions of dollars a year in subsidized phone and internet services in schools, libraries and rural areas. The justices, by a 6-3 vote, reversed an appeals court ruling that had struck down as unconstitutional the Universal Service Fund, the charge that has been added to phone bills for nearly 30 years. At arguments in March, liberal and conservative justices alike expressed concerns about the potentially devastating consequences of eliminating the fund, which has benefited tens of millions of Americans. The Federal Communications Commission collects the money from telecommunications providers, which pass the cost on to their customers. A Virginia-based conservative advocacy group, Consumers' Research, had challenged the practice. The justices had previously denied two appeals from Consumers' Research after federal appeals courts upheld the program. But the full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, among the nation's most conservative, ruled 9-7 that the method of funding is unconstitutional. The 5th Circuit held that Congress had given too much authority to the FCC and the agency in turn had ceded too much power to a private entity, or administrator. The last time the Supreme Court invoked what is known as the nondelegation doctrine to strike down a federal law was in 1935. But several conservative justices have suggested they are open to breathing new life into the legal doctrine. The conservative-led court also has reined in federal agencies in high-profile rulings in recent years. Last year, the court reversed a 40-year-old case that had been used thousands of times to uphold federal regulations. In 2022, the court ruled Congress has to act with specificity before agencies can address 'major questions,' in a ruling that limited the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to combat climate change. But the phone fee case turned out not to be the right one for finding yet another way to restrict federal regulators. President Donald Trump 's Republican administration, which has moved aggressively to curtail administrative agencies in other areas, defended the FCC program. The appeal was initially filed by President Joe Biden 's Democratic administration. ___
Washington Post
7 days ago
- Politics
- Washington Post
The ACLU bet big on a trans rights case. Its loss was predictable.
It was clear from oral arguments that the ACLU was going to lose U.S. v. Skrmetti, a challenge to Tennessee's ban on gender transition treatments for minors. But really, it was clear long before that. The plaintiffs were facing six conservative justices who needed to be convinced that such treatments are so compelling — as the litany goes, 'lifesaving, evidence-based and medically necessary' — that states could have no good reason to ban them.
Washington Post
18-06-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Supreme Court clears the way for temporary nuclear waste storage in Texas and New Mexico
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday restarted plans to temporarily store nuclear waste at sites in rural Texas and New Mexico, even as the nation is at an impasse over a permanent solution. The justices, by a 6-3 vote, reversed a federal appeals court ruling that invalidated the license granted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to a private company for the facility in southwest Texas. The outcome should also reinvigorate plans for a similar facility in New Mexico roughly 40 miles (65 kilometers) away.
