#supreme-court

#supreme-court

Which justice was responsible for the addition of Starbucks coffee in the Supreme Court cafeteria? Hint: The most recently appointed justice serves on the Court's cafeteria committee, so they've all had a go at the job.

Conventional wisdom is that a good certiorari petition needs to show the legal error below and also show why the case is important and timely. The petition follows this dual framing strategy: (1) a doctrinal claim that the Federal Circuit has abandoned preemption as the touchstone of patent eligibility; and (2) a policy argument tied to what I think of as the "new great game" and what the Trump Administration calls "Winning the AI Race." The case also arrives at the Supreme Court as the USPTO has begun to move aggressively toward limiting its use of eligibility in patent prosecution.

it can use regular troops, almost certainly without invoking 10 U.S.C. § 12406 or any other statute. (This is the "protective" power.) The power the Trump administration is seeking here is much broader-and would almost certainly mean that federalized National Guard troops would start accompanying ICE officers on immigration raids and other operations-even if they're not making the arrests themselves. That would be a ... dramatic ... escalation relative to where we are today.

So many thoughts ... For obvious reasons, I've been reflecting a lot lately on my old constitutional law coursework. As long as the Supreme Court holds that money is speech-and the Supreme Court retains enough legitimacy to be taken seriously-I foresee major free speech issues around restricting advertising. If I were a betting man, I'd bet that the court's legitimacy will have a shorter shelf life than its view on the "marketplace of ideas," given how aggressively it's shedding any pretense of respect for precedent.

To put it simply, the Court has struggled with the correct outcome in this matter,

While many lawyers and advocates for immigrants have decried SCOTUS' implicit permission for continued racial profiling, the 93-year-old retired lawman sees the 6-3 decision as a vindication of his aggressive and constitutionally questionable policing tactics in arresting Latinos. "I was just cleared by the Supreme Court," Arpaio explained to me over the phone. "Obama and Biden went after me for racial profiling. ... They went after me [and] the Supreme Court ruled in my favor last month."

Hi, I'm a candidate. These rules apply to me, and I'm suing.

We took the freedom of speech away because that's been through the courts, and the courts said you have freedom of speech but what has happened is when you burn a flag, it agitates and irritates crowds never seen anything like it, on both sides and you end up with riots. So we're going on that basis. We're looking at it from, not from the freedom of speech, which I always felt strongly about, but never passed the courts.

‼️ Are you an aspiring journalist who wants to work with The Advocate? We're looking for the next generation of queer and trans storytellers to participate in the Future of Queer Media Fellowship. Applications are open now until Oct. 31. Learn more at advocate.com/fellowship

Midway through Tuesday's arguments in Chiles v. Salazar, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked a question that stripped away the veneer of constitutional principle from the Supreme Court's latest blatant culture war. Last term, she noted, the court upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors. Now, in Chiles, the same court seemed poised to strike down Colorado's ban on "conversion therapy" for minors.

Alito specifically called out what he termed the "wrong turns" of originalism - which seem designed to encourage more extreme right results. As reported by Law.com: The first, he said, was displaying "insecure" originalism, which he described as people who remain on the "defensive" and are "haunted" by accusations of judicial activism. These originalists, he said, are "allergic" to any discussion of the value of the results produced by originalist methodologies.