Hegseth orders major Pentagon spending cuts

mingooland February 20, 2025

6 min read

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is directing Pentagon agencies and the military to cut their budgets by 8 percent as part of a dramatic realignment of defense spending to address priorities of President Donald Trump such as protecting the border and modernizing the nuclear force.

The Pentagon would cut military commands in Europe and the Middle East, as well as several programs long deemed critical while preserving or increasing spending in 17 priority areas, including border security, according to a memo obtained by POLITICO.

The scale and speed of the cuts, totaling $50 billion, marks a dramatic shift in U.S. defense policy and will likely set up a battle with Congress, where Republicans had planned to increase Pentagon spending as part of a package aimed at enacting Trump’s broader agenda.

In the memo, Hegseth outlines cuts that are twice as severe as the sequestration budget reductions imposed in 2013 — the last major cuts to the Defense Department — and equivalent to double the amount that congressional Republicans had planned to add to the Pentagon budget.

The memo does not protect weapons systems that the Pentagon had previously designated as among its most critical, including Columbia-class submarines that are set to enter service within the next decade, space-based systems, a range of manned aircraft, as well as troop deployments to a number of regions, including Europe and the Middle East.

Hegseth indicated that the cuts to future defense budgets, which had been drafted under the Biden administration, should be reinvested in the Pentagon’s new priority areas under Trump.

The full list of priorities exempted from cuts include Virginia-class submarines, uncrewed systems and the Air Force’s emerging uncrewed fighter jet program, surface ships, cybersecurity, munitions and energetics, and homeland missile defense, likely in anticipation of Trump’s push for a nationwide American equivalent of Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’ missile defense system.

The realignment signals a major shift in spending priorities that will certainly face resistance on Capitol Hill. The memo drew swift condemnation from the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee’s ranking member, Sen. Chris Coons .

“Secretary Hegseth is in over his head, and the American people will be less safe as a result,” the Delaware Democrat said in a statement. “These cuts are not just ‘low impact items’ — they will impact troop readiness, research and development into cutting-edge weapons systems, and even hang our special operations forces out to dry, all so that President Trump can fund his useless ‘Star Wars’ missile defense program. Republicans are slashing defense spending right to the bone, and [Vladimir] Putin and Xi [Jinping] are celebrating.”

One person familiar with other directives from Hegseth said that the Pentagon leadership has also asked military leaders to offer lists of programs they would like to cut, but Congress has insisted they fund. During the budgeting process, lawmakers often refuse to curtail or cut some programs the services insist they no longer want, but which have constituencies on the Hill because there are local jobs at stake.

Acting Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Salesses said in a statement Wednesday that the Pentagon’s list of cuts to fund their new priorities were taken from the Biden administration’s draft budget for fiscal year 2026.

“To achieve our mandate from President Trump, we are guided by his priorities including securing our borders, building the Iron Dome for America, and ending radical and wasteful government DEI programs and preferencing,” Salesses said.

In his statement, Salesses identified border security, Trump’s Iron Dome project, and ending diversity programs as the agency’s key priorities. He also called for cutting spending on Pentagon programs dealing with “so-called ‘climate change’ and other woke programs, as well as excessive bureaucracy.”

The prioritization of the southwest border is striking given that border operations fall under the Department of Homeland Security, not the Department of Defense. It signals a major shift in how military funding is used, away from traditional defense missions.

Climate change is also a category that can mean many things, and encompasses in some form, all military construction efforts, especially shipyard modernization which has been a major focus over the past several years.

Many of the geographic U.S. combatant commands also appear poised to be cut. While U.S. Indo-Pacific Command and its efforts to build bases in the region appear to be protected, other key regional commands such as U.S. Central Command and U.S. European Command do not appear to be exempted from cuts.

Notably, Hegseth’s memo doesn’t block cuts to the head counts for the military’s six branches.

The list of exemptions contained in the memo is often vague, listing things like “munitions” which has a massive range of possible systems that can fall under the heading, and “Executable Surface Ships” which the Navy would argue are all ship classes in the pipeline.

One massive omission is the Navy’s Columbia-class submarine, which will carry the nation’s sea-based nuclear weapons beginning next decade, and which the Navy has named as its number one priority.

The memo shields private-sector medical care from cuts, potentially setting up reductions at military hospitals and medical centers, which provide essential health care to millions of service members and veterans, said a Senate Democratic aide.

The diversity, equity and inclusion programs Hegseth is targeting are “budget dust” and unlikely to yield significant savings, the aide said.

Congress was still digesting the proposal late Wednesday, but lawmakers will likely move to protect their favored military capabilities and projects.

Congress has blocked efforts by the Pentagon to exact savings by shedding older technology, though top lawmakers have more recently signaled a willingness to swap out older hardware in favor of emerging technology.

Congress is also eyeing programs and weapons that could be placed on the chopping block. House Armed Services Chair Mike Rogers and ranking Democrat Adam Smith sent letters to the military services asking them to outline lower priority programs that could be cut or eliminated, so funding can be redirected to programs that better meet the U.S. defense strategy.

Bloomberg and the Washington Post first reported on Hegseth’s memo.

Daniel Lippman contributed reporting for this article.

Own a fractional luxury property

0 0 votes

Article Rating

0 Comments

Oldest

Newest Most Voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Politics

Government contractors’ defenses, election challenges, and intellectual disability in capital cases

<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/chrTp5HLnuy3TNMTPQf8lXn9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="Government contractors’ defenses, election challenges, and intellectual disability in capital cases" title="Government contractors’ defenses, election challenges, and intellectual disability in capital cases"> The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. A short explanation of relists is available <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/faqs-announcements-of-orders-and-opinions/#relists_explained">here</a>. The Supreme Court is making good progress in sorting through the current relists. This week it disposed of four. It was good news for the petitioner in <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/fernandez-v-united-states/">Fernandez v. United States</a>, involving the scope of <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3582">a statute that gives judges discretion to reduce criminal sentences</a> for “extraordinary and compelling reasons.” The court will consider whether those “extraordinary and compelling reasons” include doubt about guilt that may also be alleged as grounds for vacatur of a sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court is now holding a second relisted petition raising a similar issue, <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/elliott-v-united-states/">Elliott v. United States</a>, pending disposition in Fernandez. The Supreme Court declined review in 15-time relist Apache Stronghold v. United States, however, which challenged a federal land transfer that would facilitate copper mining at Oak Flat, a site sacred to the Western Apache. Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-291_5i26.pdf">dissented from the denial</a>, emphasizing that the planned mining operations would permanently destroy a central place of worship, preventing the Apaches from practicing essential religious ceremonies that cannot occur elsewhere. The court also denied review in 10-time relist L.M. v. Middleborough, involving a Massachusetts middle-school student who was barred from wearing to school a shirt stating “There Are Only Two Genders.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit upheld the school’s decision, finding no First Amendment violation. Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Thomas, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-410_o75p.pdf">dissented from the denial of cert</a>, arguing that the school engaged in viewpoint discrimination by promoting gender fluidity while silencing opposing views. Thomas, ever the originalist, also wrote a separate opinion that reiterated his skepticism of the seminal student-speech case <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/393/503/">Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District</a>, yet emphasized that even under Tinker, the school’s actions were unjustified. That brings us to this week’s conference, in which there are 143 petitions and applications on the Supreme Court’s docket. Four of these are newly relisted cases. Government contractors’ defenses to torts <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/the-geo-group-inc-v-menocal/">The GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal</a> arises from a class action brought by former immigration detainees at a private detention facility in Aurora, Colorado, operated by The GEO Group, Inc. under contract with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The plaintiffs claim that GEO required detainees to clean common areas under threat of punishment – starting with the loss of TV and telephone privileges – potentially including solitary confinement. According to the plaintiffs, there was also a separate voluntary work program under which detainees could do various jobs, but for which they were paid just $1 per day. The class action alleged violations of the <a href="https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-2000-title18-section1589&num=0&edition=2000">Trafficking Victims Protection Act</a> and Colorado common law prohibitions against unjust enrichment. GEO asserted that it had derivative sovereign immunity under the 1940 Supreme Court case <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/309/18/">Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Co.</a>, arguing that it was merely executing government directives and was thus immune from suit. But the district court denied GEO at summary judgment, holding that the challenged policies were not required by the ICE contract. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit subsequently dismissed GEO’s appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, holding that denial of Yearsley immunity is not an immediately appealable collateral order. GEO now seeks Supreme Court review, arguing that the decision deepens a 5-3 circuit split on whether Yearsley-based claims of derivative sovereign immunity can be reviewed before final judgment. GEO’s cert petition insists that denying immediate review frustrates the very purpose of immunity: to avoid litigation burdens in the first place. Supporting briefs from groups including the Professional Services Council warn the lower court’s ruling may chill contractor participation in federal programs. But the former detainees counter that Yearsley is merely a merits defense – not an immunity from suit – and contend the issue is too fact-bound for interlocutory appeal. According to GEO, three new courts of appeals have weighed in since the Supreme Court last considered the issue in <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/caci-premier-technology-inc-v-al-shimari/">CACI Premier Technology v. al Shimari</a>. Although the court denied review of CACI in 2021, in that case the government – in response to the court’s invitation – <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-648/151310/20200826130104385_CACI%20v%20Al-Shimari.pdf">argued that Supreme Court review is warranted</a>, even though it takes the view that Yearsley immunity is not immediately appealable. Perhaps the time for review has finally arrived. Immunity of federal contractors In 2016, an Afghan national working under Fluor Corporation at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan, employed pursuant to a Pentagon program encouraging the employment of Afghan citizens, built an explosive vest while unsupervised. He then detonated it, grievously injuring U.S. Army Specialist Winston Hencely. Hencely sued Fluor in tort, alleging negligent hiring, supervision, and retention under South Carolina law, as well as third-party contract claims. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit <a href="https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/21-1994/21-1994-2024-10-30.pdf?ts=1730311221">affirmed</a> the district court’s dismissal of the case, holding that the tort claims were barred by a form of federal preemption based on the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2680">“combatant activities” exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act</a>. Although the appeals court recognized this provision normally bars claims only against the federal government, it determined this applied to claims against Fluor as a contractor since Fluor was “integrated into” combat operations and was working under the command of the military. In <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/hencely-v-fluor-corporation/">Hencely v. Fluor Corporation</a>, Hencely seeks Supreme Court review to resolve whether federal contractors enjoy immunity from state-law tort suits because they are integrated into combat operations, even when, as alleged here, they violate military orders and contractual duties. Hencely contends the 4th Circuit applied a new preemption theory unmoored from the FTCA’s text or Supreme Court precedent, extending the 1988 Supreme Court decision <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/487/500/">Boyle v. United Technologies Corporation</a>, which immunized government contractors from liability under certain circumstances, beyond recognition. A brief from <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-924/354334/20250328171117618_Hencely%20v.%20Fluor%20Brief%20States%20Amicus.pdf">West Virginia and eleven other states</a> supporting Hencely echoes that concern, contending the ruling “rewrote the statute” to provide sweeping immunity for private contractors. Fluor counters that the ruling <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-924/357547/20250428124625242_24-924%20Brief%20in%20Opposition.pdf">merely applies settled Boyle principles</a> to war-zone logistics and implicates no true circuit split. If the court wants to revisit Boyle or cabin the FTCA’s combat-zone carve-out, this could be a case to watch. Standing in election law cases <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/bost-v-illinois-state-board-of-elections/">Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections</a> features a constitutional challenge to an Illinois law requiring the counting of mail-in ballots that arrive up to two weeks after Election Day, so long as they are postmarked (or certified) by Election Day. Representative Michael Bost, R-Ill., and two former presidential electors sued under the Constitution’s elections and electors clauses, arguing that the extended ballot receipt deadline unlawfully extends federal election timing beyond what 2 U.S.C. § 7 and 3 U.S.C. § 1 allow. They also invoked candidate-specific injuries, including campaign resource burdens and the alleged dilution of the “accurate vote tally.” But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit didn’t buy it. In an <a href="https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/23-2644/23-2644-2024-08-21.pdf?ts=1724257821">opinion</a> by Judge John Lee, the court dismissed for lack of standing, stating the harm to the plaintiffs as voters claiming their votes were diluted by late-returned ballots were the sort of “generalized grievances” that failed to distinguish these plaintiffs from anyone else in Illinois. A majority of the 7th Circuit also rejected Bost’s claims as a candidate, declaring it speculative that late-received votes made any difference. Judge Michael Scudder dissented in part, saying that Bost was injured as a candidate because the law increased his campaign costs by requiring him to monitor late-arriving votes. Bost argues that the 7th Circuit’s decision created a circuit split. In support of this, he points to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit’s decision in <a href="https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/20-3139/20-3139-2020-10-29.pdf?ts=1604012417">Carson v. Simon </a>(recognizing candidates’ interest in accurate vote tallies) and precedents from the U.S Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit like <a href="https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C06/06-50812-CV0.wpd.pdf">Tex. Democratic Party v. Benkiser</a> and <a href="https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/24-60395/24-60395-2024-10-25.pdf?ts=1729899015">Republican National Committee v. Wetzel</a> (accepting campaign costs as a cognizable injury). Illinois contends that no such split exists, as those cases involved competitive injuries not alleged here. Supporting briefs, from groups including the Gun Owners of America, warn of a post-2020 trend tightening standing rules, risking unreviewable election law abuses. With around half the states adopting similar postmarked-by-Election-Day counting policies, this case may catch the court’s eye. Intellectual disability in capital cases Over two decades ago, the Supreme Court held in <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/536/304/">Atkins v. Virginia</a> that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the execution of individuals who are intellectually disabled. In <a href="https://casetext.com/case/hall-v-florida-7">Hall v. Florida</a> and <a href="https://casetext.com/case/moore-v-texas-12">Moore v. Texas</a>, the court then adopted a definition of intellectual disability that looked to (among other factors) “significantly subaverage intellectual functioning,” and in particular, whether “the lower end of [the offender’s] [IQ] score range falls at or below 70.” Joseph Clifton Smith was convicted and sentenced to death for murdering Durk Van Dam in order to steal his boots, tools, and $140. In repeated IQ tests, Smith scored 78, 75, 74, 74, and 72. On habeas review, the district court held that Smith was intellectually disabled, noting among other things that because his 72 score had a three-point margin of error, his IQ could be as low as 69. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit <a href="https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202114519.pdf">affirmed</a>. In 2023, <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/hamm-v-smith-3/">Alabama petitioned for review</a> and after a remarkable 21 relists, the Supreme Court <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-167_heim.pdf">summarily vacated the judgment</a> and remanded, perhaps simply kicking the can down the road. Specifically, the court said the 11th Circuit’s opinion could be read as granting review because a single one of Smith’s tests could have been as low as 69, and that interpretation “would suggest a per se rule that the lower end of the standard-error range for an offender’s lowest score is dispositive.” On the other hand, the court noted that the 11th Circuit also approvingly cited the district court’s determination that Smith’s lowest score was not an outlier when considered together with his higher scores. According to the court, “[t]hat analysis would suggest a more holistic approach to multiple IQ scores that considers the relevant evidence, including as appropriate any relevant expert testimony.” On remand, <a href="https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca11/14-10721/14-10721-2024-11-14.pdf?ts=1731630699">the 11th Circuit made clear</a> that the latter (“holistic”) reading was the correct one, and that it had not relied on a single IQ test. The appeals court wrote that “to be even more precise, based on the complete record, including any relevant expert testimony, we concluded that the district court did not clearly err in its factual findings that Smith suffered from significantly subaverage intellectual function, that he had significant and substantial deficits in adaptive behavior, and that he manifested those qualities before he turned 18.” Alabama is now back at the Supreme Court. In Hamm v. Smith, Alabama <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-872/342591/20250212131357854_2025.02.12%20--%20Hamm%20v.%20Smith%20Cert%20Petition%20FINAL.pdf">contends</a> that the courts below misapplied Hall and Moore by proceeding to the adaptive-functioning prong of the intellectual-disability test despite no IQ score clearly at or below 70. That, Alabama says, guts the rule requiring defendants to prove each Atkins prong – including “significantly subaverage intellectual functioning” – by a preponderance of the evidence. Instead, the 11th Circuit supposedly allowed Smith to proceed based on the possibility that his “true” IQ could fall within range, even if his scores (ranging from 72 to 78 post-age-18) never showed a 70. <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-872/355817/20250416175916793_BIO%20II%20Final.pdf">Smith responds</a> that the petition is a factbound request to second-guess credibility determinations after a full evidentiary hearing, and no real circuit split exists. The United States filed a rare (or at least <a href="https://x.com/johnpelwood/status/1901824076366205426">previously rare</a>) unsolicited cert-stage amicus brief supporting Alabama, arguing the court should take the case to clarify that states may require a threshold IQ finding before turning to adaptive deficits. The government also asks the court to grant review to provide guidance on how multiple IQ scores should be evaluated in the aggregate – a surprisingly uncharted area two decades post-Atkins. <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-872/352275/20250319101820099_Amicus_Commissioner%20v%20Smith.pdf">Nineteen states have also filed an amicus brief</a> supporting Alabama. Expect a decision soon on whether this becomes Atkins’ next chapter – a grant seems reasonably likely. That’s all for this week. Tune in Monday to find out whether the court will be adding anything to the fall argument calendar. New Relists <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/bost-v-illinois-state-board-of-elections/">Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections</a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-568.html">24-568</a> Issue: Whether petitioners, as federal candidates, have pleaded sufficient factual allegations to show Article III standing to challenge state time, place, and manner regulations concerning their federal elections. (relisted after the May 22 conference) <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/the-geo-group-inc-v-menocal/">The GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal</a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-758.html">24-758</a> Issue: Whether an order denying a government contractor’s claim of derivative sovereign immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine. (relisted after the May 22 conference) <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/hamm-v-smith-4/">Hamm v. Smith</a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-872.html">24-872</a> Issues: (1) Whether, under a proper application of <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/536/304/">Atkins v. Virginia</a>, a state can require a claimant to prove an IQ of 70 or less by a preponderance of the evidence; and (2) whether courts evaluating multiple IQ scores must find that every valid score of “about” 75 or less supports an Atkins claim. (relisted after the May 22 conference) <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/hencely-v-fluor-corporation/">Hencely v. Fluor Corporation</a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-924.html">24-924</a> Issue: Whether <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/487/500/">Boyle v. United Technologies Corp.</a> should be extended to allow federal interests emanating from the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2680">Federal Tort Claims Act’s</a> combatant-activities exception to preempt state tort claims against a government contractor for conduct that breached its contract and violated military orders. (relisted after the May 22 conference) Returning Relists <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/ocean-state-tactical-llc-v-rhode-island/">Ocean State Tactical, LLC v. Rhode Island</a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-131.html">24-131</a> Issues: (1) Whether a retrospective and confiscatory ban on the possession of ammunition-feeding devices that are in common use violates the Second Amendment; and (2) whether a law dispossessing citizens without compensation of property that they lawfully acquired and long possessed without incident violates the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment. (Relisted after the Jan. 10, Jan. 17, Jan. 24, Feb. 21, Feb. 28, March 7, March 21, March 28, April 4, April 17, April 25, May 2, May 15 and May 22 conferences.) <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/snope-v-brown/">Snope v. Brown</a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-203.html">24-203</a> Issue: Whether the Constitution permits Maryland to ban semiautomatic rifles that are in common use for lawful purposes, including the most popular rifle in America. (Relisted after the Jan. 10, Jan. 17, Jan. 24, Feb. 21, Feb. 28, March 7, March 21, March 28, April 4, April 17, April 25, May 2, May 15 and May 22 conferences.) <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/first-choice-womens-resource-centers-inc-v-platkin/">First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin</a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-781.html">24-781</a> Issue: Where the subject of a state investigatory demand has established a reasonably objective chill of its First Amendment rights, is a federal court in a first-filed action deprived of jurisdiction because those rights must be adjudicated in state court? (Relisted after the April 4, April 17, April 25, May 2, May 15 and May 22 conferences.) <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/ghp-management-corp-v-city-of-los-angeles-california/">GHP Management Corp v. City of Los Angeles, California</a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-435.html">24-435</a> Issue: Whether an eviction moratorium depriving property owners of the fundamental right to exclude nonpaying tenants effects a physical taking. (Relisted after the April 17, April 25, May 2, May 15 and May 22 conferences.) <a></a><a></a><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/nicholson-v-w-l-york-inc-dba-cover-girls/">Nicholson v. W.L. York, Inc. dba Cover Girls</a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-7490.html">23-7490</a> Issue: Whether the continuing violations doctrine applies to claims premised on a pattern or practice of discrimination, or instead applies only in the context of hostile work environment claims. (Relisted after the April 25, May 2, May 15 and May 22 conferences.) <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/chambers-smith-v-ayers/">Chambers-Smith v. Ayers</a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-584.html">24-584</a> Issue: Whether, when a person in state custody obtains new support for a previously available claim, that means she has a new “factual predicate” that restarts her clock to file a habeas petition under <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2244">28 U.S.C. §2244(d)(1)(D)</a>. (relisted after the May 15 and May 22 conferences.) <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/case-v-montana/">Case v. Montana</a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-624.html">24-624</a> Issue: Whether law enforcement may enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring, or whether the emergency-aid exception requires probable cause. (relisted after the May 15 and May 22 conferences.) <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/meadors-v-erie-county-board-of-elections/">Meadors v. Erie County Board of Elections</a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-684.html">24-684</a> Issue: Whether the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” doctrine requires plaintiffs in election law cases to predict and articulate specific plans for their own future electoral participation, or instead it is sufficient to show that the challenged law will continue to affect voters and candidates in future elections. (relisted after the May 15 and May 22 conferences.) <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/iowa-pork-producers-association-v-bonta/">Iowa Pork Producers Association v. Bonta</a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-728.html">24-728</a> Issues: (1) Whether a party alleging that California’s Proposition 12, “which enacts a pork sales ban to regulate the manner in which pigs are housed in states across the country,” discriminates against interstate commerce, both directly and under <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/397/137/">Pike v. Bruce Church</a>, states a claim; and (2) whether lower federal courts evaluating fractured opinions from the court consider all justices’ opinions to determine the majority position on a legal issue, or instead are limited to consider only opinions concurring in the result. (relisted after the May 15 and May 22 conferences.) The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/05/government-contractors-defenses-election-challenges-and-intellectual-disability-in-capital-cases/">Government contractors’ defenses, election challenges, and intellectual disability in capital cases</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.

mingooland · May 29, 2025 · 14 min read

Politics

Namal Rajapaksa seeks the blessings of Lord Rama at Ayodhya

The post Namal Rajapaksa seeks the blessings of Lord Rama at Ayodhya appeared first on NewsIn.Asia. Own a fractional luxury property

mingooland · February 10, 2024 · 1 min read

General

Inibehe Effiong: Wike Suffering From ‘Chronic God Complex’

"This is the price that Nigerians have to pay for having tolerance for dictators." The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.arise.tv/inibehe-effiong-wike-suffering-from-chronic-god-complex/">Inibehe Effiong: Wike Suffering From ‘Chronic God Complex’</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.arise.tv">Arise News</a>.

mingooland · December 15, 2023 · 3 min read

You Might Also Like