Alito wrote that the plaintiff states and federal courts — including SCOTUS — 'bear a substantial share of the blame for the rule’s timing.'
State of the Union: Justices Alito and Thomas dissented and Kavanaugh signaled fight could return. The post SCOTUS Blocks Trump’s Mail Voting Restrictions Ahead of Midterms appeared first on The American Conservative .
The Supreme Court ruled Monday to block President Donald Trump’s restrictions on mail-in ballots ahead of November’s midterm elections. In a 7-2 ruling, the court rejected an emergency application filed by the Trump administration seeking to lift a lower court’s injunction that blocked a new Postal Service rule on mail ballots. The Supreme Court found the administration was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its case, though the underlying legal question of whether the Postal Service has authority to enforce Trump’s restrictions remains unresolved. Conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas were the dissenting voices. Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred with the majority but wrote separately, suggesting the rule…Open
He further praised Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, both of whom dissented in the ruling.
The Supreme Court struck down the U.S. Postal Service's rule restructuring mail-in voting Monday, halting a major Trump administration priority. The big picture: The decision is a major win for voting rights advocates and the states that challenged the administration's plan; it also reverses the Supreme Court's earlier green light for President Trump's mail-in voting order. - The justices' prior unsigned order allowing the rule to proceed was not a ruling on the merits — but this time around, they decided the government is "unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge." Driving the news: While the court denied the administration's stance, the justices were divided on the merits of the case. - Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in…
The Supreme Court struck down the U.S. Postal Service's rule restructuring mail-in voting Monday, halting a major Trump administration priority. The big picture: The decision is a major win for voting rights advocates and the states that challenged the administration's plan; it also reverses the Supreme Court's earlier green light for President Trump's mail-in voting order. - The justices' prior unsigned order allowing the rule to proceed was not a ruling on the merits — but this time around, they decided the government is "unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge." Driving the news: While the court denied the administration's stance, the justices were divided on the merits of the case. - Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in…Open
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of allowing construction on President Trump's White House ballroom to continue, after a lower court's attempt to halt the project.
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of allowing construction on President Trump’s White House ballroom to continue, after a lower court’s attempt to halt the project. PULSE POINTS WHAT HAPPENED: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to allow construction on President Donald J. Trump’s $400 million White House ballroom and military complex to continue on Monday, overturning a lower court’s decision to halt the project. The ruling permits the 90,000-square-foot project to proceed despite ongoing legal challenges, which could potentially still result in the project being halted at a later date. WHEN & WHERE: The decision was issued by the Supreme Court on Monday after a previous ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit…Open
"Great news for our Country! Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has announced that he is staying for another term," Trump posted to Truth Social. "He is one of the Greatest of All Time. We are all lucky!"
Rumors of a planned Alito retirement have circulated for years, though they gained steam in recent months, culminating in an erroneous NPR article that announced his retirement prematurely. An editor's note addressed the mistake.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is confirming that he’s staying on the nation’s highest court for another term
‘This case essentially is Caetano 2.0’
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) petitioned the Supreme Court Tuesday to take a case involving a stun gun ban, accusing a federal appeals court of flouting a decade-old ruling by the high court. The Supreme Court ruled in Caetano v. Massachusetts that a ban on stun guns was unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds in a unanimous per curiam (unsigned) ruling released on March 21, 2016. SAF referenced the 2016 decision at the opening of its petition for a writ of certiorari. (RELATED: California Almost Completely Ignores Recent SCOTUS 2A Ruling While Defending Glock Ban From DOJ Suit) “This case essentially is Caetano 2.0. In Caetano v. Massachusetts, this Court summarily vacated a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision…Open