Net Neutrality Heads Back To Court; Corrupt Supreme Court Could Dismantle U.S. Broadband Consumer Protection techdirt.com
What a Trump victory means for tech: antitrust woes die down, except for Google, TikTok survives, AI progress accelerates, social media shifts right, and more nytimes.com
Cellular Providers Leverage Q3 Phone Promotions in Battle for Customers telecompetitor.com
Frontier adds record fiber subs as shareholder vote looms lightreading.com
Canada orders TikTok's business in the country to be dissolved, citing national security risks, but says it is not blocking Canadians' access to the app reuters.com
T-Mobile deploys private 5G for Jacksonville shuttle service rcrwireless.com
read comment(s)

The Supreme Court's rejected a conservative-led attack that could've undermined the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The post Supreme Court sides with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, spurning a conservative attack first appeared on Federal News Network.

The Supreme Court has sided with the Biden administration in a dispute with Republican-led states over controversial social media posts.

The post The Supreme Court rules for Biden administration in a social media dispute with conservative states first appeared on Federal News Network.

The Supreme Court has stripped the Securities and Exchange Commission of a major tool in fighting securities fraud.

The post The Supreme Court strips the SEC of a critical enforcement tool in fraud cases first appeared on Federal News Network.

Just months after the Supreme Court limited abortion access, infant mortality rates rose significantly higher, according to a new study.

Supreme Court sidesteps a ruling on laws in Florida and Texas that would regulate social media platforms.

The Supreme Court refuses to shield Uber and Lyft from California state labor lawsuits that seek back pay for tens of thousands of drivers.

ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: A bipartisan delegation of Congresspeople is just back from Ukraine. It was a trip designed to strengthen the U.S.-Ukraine alliance, and it was planned before news broke of the whistleblower complaint against President Trump involving that same country. Congressman John Garamendi led the delegation as a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee. And the Democrat from California joins us now. Welcome, Congressman. JOHN GARAMENDI: Good to be with you. SHAPIRO: One central question in the impeachment inquiry is whether President Trump demanded help investigating a political rival in exchange for U.S. aid to Ukraine. And I know that aid was a central topic on your trip, so what did you learn about Ukraine's reliance on American assistance? GARAMENDI: Well, first of all, Ukraine is an extraordinary country. These citizens of that country are determined to be independent. They have been fighting a war against Russia for the last five years. They've lost 13- to 14

The decision followed a landmark 2020 decision that said much of eastern Oklahoma falls within an Indian reservation, limiting the authority of state prosecutors.

 The United States invented the Rule of Law through the fragmentation of sovereignty among 51 sovereign authorities each with three branches of government. It further protects individual rights from state and federal infringement. This effectively created a legal system that could all state actors to account before law. While still imperfect in many important ways, Donald Trump took a sledgehammer to the Rule of Law particularly since January 6, 2021.

Today in America the rule of law faces severe challenges and may well face a total sunset. If so, the Supreme Court of the United States played a central role as accomplice. Most notably, today granted review (certiorari) on the following question: Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office. That question in the abstract may hold academic interest, but the answer lies in many disputes in the future over decades or even centuries. 

Prof. Laurence Tribe, a legendary Constitutional Law scholar, explains the effect of this action:

Today, the United States Supreme Court obliterated the Fourteenth Amendment, section 3, in Trump v. Anderson. The language of this section appears simple enough:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The Court held that: "the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3." More specifically, the Court held that only Congress may enforce the disqualification of section 3 and that states could only enforce the provision against state candidates for office and state officeholders. Otherwise the nation would face a risk of a patchwork of state outcomes. This, despite the fact that in 1868, shortly after the provision became law, the Governor of the State of Georgia disqualified a federal candidate for office. (See fn 3).

Further, if "only" Congress holds power to enforce section 3 then why did the drafters of the Amendment just insert an "only" in the section granting Congress power. The Court needs that "only" and it simply does not exist. Rather than apply the plain meaning the Court instead pretends there is an only when there is no such word. Section 5 plainly states: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." The Court did violence to the statute to protect Donald Trump.

Former Fourth Circuit Judge J. Michael Luttig, a prominent conservative jurist explains:

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

The Court cited this section with approval. It would provide a uniform federal solution. And, it arises from an exercise of Congressional power. Even this Court (which works overtime to protect Trump) would uphold such an action. 

Why did Jack Smith (or Attorney General Merrick Garland before him) fail to use this section against the obvious insurrectionist Donald Trump? Or, alternatively, why not bring such an action tomorrow morning? Colorado would provide a form indictment and a trial map, complete with comprehensive evidence?

So, the Court today shifted the spotlight to DOJ with today's SCOTUS ruling. Agreement or disagreement with the Court's opinion no longer matters. Many excellent arguments support the use of section 3 in precisely the manner of Colorado. All moot.

Why did DOJ fail (and continue to fail) to seek disqualification through a criminal action a criminal action? 

The most disturbing and vivid reality of all of this: law failed to hold Trump to account as an oath breaking insurrectionist despite many available pathways.

The murder trial of Ajamu Hollis — who is accused of killing off-duty corrections officer Daemon Bell — has started in the Supreme Court. The court heard that Mr Hollis, 47, allegedly used a gardening hoe to hit Mr Bell, who had tried to break up an argument. Mr Bell, who was 49 at the […]

The murder trial of Raheem Wray — who is charged with murdering Osagi Bascome — continues in the Supreme Court, with Assistant Justice Mark Pettingill expressing concern about social media posts. Justice Pettingill reminded jurors not to view social media reports discussing the ongoing trial. The BBC reported that he did not specify the precise […]

1. Cindy Crossthwaite's estranged husband faces Supreme Court murder trial over mother of three's death  ABC News
2. 'Deep-seated hatred' for estranged wife led to killing, jury told  9News
3. 'Deep-seated hatred' for estranged wife led to killing, court hears  9News

Princeton University will present the honors at Alumni Day, scheduled for Feb. 22, 2025.

In this video, Armed Scholar expounds on the recent decision by the US Supreme Court concerning our border and the flooding of illegal immigrants, including the Biden administration, through the Department of Homeland Security, concerning programs set up that promised citizenship to illegal aliens. The decision was handed down following the 2024 elections, striking down …

(Official editorial of the Washington Examiner Oct. 30. NOTE: Hours after this editorial was published, the Supreme Court did exactly as the editorial board suggested.)  The Supreme Court should decide […]

The post Supreme Court should let Virginia manage its voter rolls appeared first on Quin Hillyer.

President Trump officially announced that he has selected Judge Amy Coney Barrett as his nominee to fill the vacancy of late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court, setting up a bitter Senate confirmation battle with just five weeks left until Election Day. “I stand before you today to fulfill one of my highest […]

The post Trump Officially Nominates Amy Coney Barrett To Fill Supreme Court Vacancy appeared first on Hispolitica.

The Supreme Court appeared skeptical that companies should be required to include past events in their risk disclosure statements during oral arguments for Facebook Inc. vs. Amalgamated Bank on Wednesday.

On Nov. 13, 1956, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the federal district court's ruling in Browder v. Gayle (1956) that segregation on interstate buses was unconstitutional.

Montana's highest court has struck down a tuition tax-credit program which, as enacted by that state's legislature, allowed tuition scholarships to benefit students at private religious schools as well as secular schools.

Groups on all sides of the debate over private school choice agree that a U.S. Supreme Court ruling will be tremendously consequential. But it may take some time for the ripple effects to spread.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review a decision by Montana's highest court that struck down a tuition tax-credit program allowing tuition scholarships to benefit students at private religious schools.

The justices ruled 5-4 that a Montana state constitutional provision barring aid to religion discriminated against religious schools and families seeking to benefit from a tax credit for donations for scholarships.

The 5-4 decision involving a dispute in Montana appears to cast doubt on as many as 30 state constitutions that bar aid to religious schools.

Amy Coney Barrett succeeds the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in time to hear arguments in two cases being watched in the education community.

Danville Christian Academy is seeking emergency relief from the COVID-19 closure order after losing in federal appeals court.

Writing in dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said a lower court had disrupted state property tax revenue for schools and other government services.

The justices declined to take up a major challenge to exclusive-bargaining arrangements for teachers' unions and other public employee labor organizations.

Gov. Christie has pushed to flatten the state's funding formula so that the state's impoverished urban districts would get the same amount of money wealthy suburban districts get.

The state's highest court allowed some claims brought on behalf of relatives of victims of the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School to proceed against the firearms industry.

The state's supreme court ruled that it is not its role to tell the legislature how to spend its money, ending a 24-year school-funding battle.

The supreme court put an end to five years of legal wrangling that landed the state's public school system with millions more dollars from the state and teachers with a pay raise.

The state's highest court ruled that Washington's charter school law is mostly constitutional, and that charter schools can continue to receive public money.

The court declined to take up an appeal backed by school groups of a ruling allowing some property taxpayers challenge their assessments in federal court.

SolidWorks software helps cut Crenshaw's new product development time and costs in half

A group of Texas high school cheerleaders filed a petition with the state Supreme Court over an ongoing dispute about the display of banners with religious messages at high school football games.

The battle stems from Varsity Brands' efforts to gain copyright protection for the design of stripes, chevrons, zigzags, and color blocks that are on its uniforms.

The justices hear arguments Nov. 12 on the Trump administration's effort to end deportation relief under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, in a case pitting the administration and GOP-leaning states against a host of education and advocacy groups.

The court rules that the decision to unwind deportation relief for nearly 700,000 undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children was done in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner.

Micheal Baca, now a government teacher, was one of the rogue electors who faced sanctions for casting an Electoral College ballot for someone other than the winner of their states' popular vote.

The Colorado Supreme Court decided Douglas County's Choice Scholarship Program is unconstitutional.

The Centre on Monday informed the Supreme Court of framing the "Menstrual Hygiene Policy for School Going Girls" approved by the Union Health Ministry.

After making strong observations on the practice of demolishing houses of criminals to send out a strong message against crime, which has come to be known as 'bulldozer justice', the Supreme Court is expected to issue a set of pan-India guidelines fo