The U.S. Supreme Court rejects conservative challenge to the federal consumer protection agency.
NBC News reports: "The justices rejected a business-backed argument that could have hobbled the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which protects people from unlawful financial services practices such as predatory lending."
"Friends of the Court," ProPublica's investigation into Supreme Court justices' beneficial relationships with billionaire donors, has been awarded the #Pulitzer Prize for Public Service!
Here are the highlights from the reporting (THREAD)
The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from Elon Musk to back out of a settlement he struck with the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2018, over tweets he made about Tesla that regulators alleged were fraudulent.
To avoid enforcement, Musk agreed to a “Twitter sitter” — a company lawyer that was required to approve any social media posts he made about Tesla. Now, he’s claiming it is a violation of his First Amendment rights, but as @CNN reports, the Supreme Court doesn’t agree.
I can't believe I even have to say this, but it is not normal that the Supreme Court is taking its sweet time to decide if the president can incite an insurrection to overturn an election and maintain power. This should have been decided already. The answer is no!
"The display we saw yesterday was a vivid illustration of how the Court has gone thoroughly rogue, cutting itself off from even the appearances of the processes that give it legitimacy. That is the core of the current Court’s corruption."
"Four years ago, the Supreme Court of the United States was, by far, the most-trusted institution in Washington. Now, as the high court nears the end of another potentially seismic term, public trust in the court has eroded."
@csmonitor asks: Can your court rebuild its trust?
If you’re following the details of the #SCOTUS arguments on whether #Trump is immune from prosecution for committing crimes as “official acts”, it’s grim. They are literally debating whether killing a political rival could be an official act and somehow immune from prosecution. It’s is absolutely shocking the bonkers arguments that they’re entertaining. I have a solution.
#Biden should announce that if the #SupremeCourt rules that presidents are immune from prosecution, he will order the assassination of Donald Trump. Then, let the justices solve the trolley problem they themselves created.
TikTok CEO #ShouZiChew has said the company will take the fight against the new law to the courts, but some experts believe that for the #US#SupremeCourt, national security considerations could outweigh #FreeSpeech protection.
War Donald Trump als US-Präsident immun gegen Strafverfolgung? Mit dieser Frage hat sich erstmals der Supreme Court befasst. Die Entscheidung wird weitreichend sein - und beeinflussen, ob und wann der Prozess gegen Trump beginnen kann. Von Nina Barth.
"Absolute Immunität für Trump ist eigentlich unvorstellbar"
Dass sich das oberste US-Gericht mit der Immunität von Ex-US-Präsident Trump befasst, könnte eine Verzögerungstaktik sein, sagt der US-Jurist Russell Miller. Doch der Ausgang des Prozesses sei ungewiss.
By looking to future, #SCOTUS may push #Trump’s DC trial past election
With the #immunity claims before the #SupremeCourt on Thurs, the #judicial branch is being asked to draw a clear line about what a president can or cannot do.
The high court, w/3 Trump nominees, has generally not been receptive to Trump’s assertions of immunity, forcing him to comply w/a #subpoena & rejecting his efforts to block #Congress from accessing his tax records.
The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in a case that could determine whether doctors can provide abortions to pregnant women with medical emergencies in states that enact abortion bans.
AP has a live blog on the battle between federal and state rights: https://flip.it/K-8aGN
For ongoing coverage of the abortion debate, follow @abortion-ElectionCentral
I am about the read the Florida Supreme Court's decision eliminating abortion rights under the Florida Constitution, which has an explicit right to privacy and has until today been read to reach the right to abortion.
I suspect I will become very, very angry at this blatantly outcome driven decision
The Florida Supreme Court's decision eliminating the right to abortion under the Florida Const is as unprincipled as the Supreme Court's decision eliminating it under the US Const.
Perhaps more, because the Florida Const has an EXPLICIT RIGHT TO PRIVACY
Once again, conservatives jettison precedent and manipulate "original public meaning" to get exactly the answer they want.
Justice Jackson: You suggest there is a broader conscience objection. What is that?
Answer: The conscience harm is either taking the life of an unborn child (Jackson: this is the narrow one) and the other being complicit in providing healthcare which is connected to taking life.
Answer: There are procedures like D&C which are related to broader objections than being directly involved. (Her answer is muddled, so I'm not sure that even makes sense).
Justice Thomas: On Comstock, I'd like you to comment on the other side's answers.
Answer: We don't think there is any case of this Court that allows the FDA to ignore federal law. Comstock says drugs should not be mailed through common carriers or mail. It seems clearly applicable.