<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/ly2Q2qEece2OBUFTUrI7fHn9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="The morning read for Thursday, May 22" title="The morning read for Thursday, May 22"> <p>We’re expecting <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/terms/ot2024/">one or more opinions</a> from the court at 10 a.m. EDT. Join us for the live blog, beginning at 9:30 a.m. </p> <p>Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles and commentary related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Thursday morning read:</p> <ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/21/us/politics/supreme-court-doge-foia.html">Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Shield DOGE From Releasing Records</a> (Abbie VanSickle, The New York Times) </li> <li><a href="https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2025-05-21/disney-suspends-venezuelan-workers-on-supreme-court-ruling">Disney suspends Venezuelan workers on Supreme Court ruling</a> (Fabiola Zerpa, Los Angeles Times)</li> <li><a href="https://www.yahoo.com/news/vance-says-roberts-profoundly-wrong-162116497.html">Vance says Roberts is ‘profoundly wrong’ about judiciary’s role to check executive branch</a> (Kit Maher, CNN) </li> <li><a href="https://www.newsweek.com/trump-judge-slams-supreme-court-after-ruling-2075295">Trump Judge Slams Supreme Court ‘Disrespect’ After Ruling</a> (Jenna Sundel, Newsweek)</li> <li><a href="https://thehill.com/newsletters/the-gavel/5310109-supreme-court-justices-analysis/">Jackson most vocal member on Supreme Court bench: Analysis</a> (Ella Lee and Zach Schonfeld, The Hill) </li>
</ul> <p></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/05/the-morning-read-for-thursday-may-22/">The morning read for Thursday, May 22</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
<p>Lawyer Kunle Adegoke has warned that CBN’s audit demand could sabotage Supreme Court ruling on local government financial autonomy</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.arise.tv/kunle-adegoke-slams-cbn-over-delay-in-local-government-autonomy-implementation-cites-supreme-court-violation/">Kunle Adegoke Slams CBN Over Delay in Local Government Autonomy Implementation, Cites Supreme Court Violation</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.arise.tv">Arise News</a>.</p>
<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/RTj0Tlh12mSEHlC2V-9NV3n9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="Trump asks high court to pause another suit against DOGE " title="Trump asks high court to pause another suit against DOGE "> <p>The Trump administration came to the Supreme Court on Wednesday morning, once again asking the justices to take action on their emergency docket. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer urged the court to temporarily pause an order by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., that would require the Department of Government Efficiency to provide information in a lawsuit filed under the Freedom of Information Act. Sauer told the justices that requiring DOGE as a “presidential advisory body” to respond to the plaintiffs’ requests, a process known as discovery, “clearly violates the separation of powers” and “will significantly distract” from DOGE’s “mission of identifying and eliminating fraud, waste, and abuse in the federal government.”</p> <span id="more-528708"></span> <p>President Donald Trump created DOGE on Jan. 20 to “further the President’s agenda by ‘modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity.’” DOGE is not a cabinet-level department but has had sweeping involvement in the president’s efforts to shrink the federal government across agencies since he took office. </p> <p>The Trump administration’s request on Wednesday stems from a Jan. 24 request made under FOIA by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a government watchdog group. CREW sought, among other things, communications between the DOGE administrator, Amy Gleason, and DOGE staff, as well as financial disclosures submitted by DOGE personnel. </p> <p>On Feb. 20, CREW filed a lawsuit under FOIA in federal court in Washington, D.C. It sought documents that, according to CREW, it wanted before Congress passed a bill to fund the federal government. </p> <p>As the case comes to the court on Wednesday, it centers on CREW’s request for expedited discovery to determine whether DOGE is an “agency” that must comply with FOIA. CREW asked to depose Gleason as well as for a list of government contracts and grants that DOGE recommended be canceled, a list of employees and positions that DOGE recommended be terminated, and a list of current and former DOGE employees. </p> <p>U.S. District Judge Christopher R. Cooper largely granted CREW’s request, including the request to depose Gleason, and instructed DOGE to respond quickly. </p> <p>In an order on May 14, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declined to pause Cooper’s order, calling the discovery order “narrow” and “modest.” </p> <p>Sauer came to the Supreme Court one week later, asking the justices to intervene. He told them that Cooper had “granted expedited, intrusive discovery into a presidential advisory body to address whether that advisory body is exempt from FOIA.” Such an order, he emphasized, gives CREW “a significant part of the information it would obtain were it to prevail on the merits of its FOIA arguments,” and it “offends the separation of powers by compromising the ‘necessity’ for confidentiality that allows presidential advisors to provide ‘candid, objective’ advice and communication.” </p> <p>The justices are already considering another emergency appeal involving DOGE: On May 2, <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/05/trump-asks-high-court-to-allow-doge-access-to-social-security-records/">the Trump administration asked the justices</a> to pause an order by a federal judge in Baltimore that temporarily restricts DOGE team members from accessing the records of the Social Security Administration, access which challengers argue could expose the personal data of millions of Americans. The court has not yet acted on that appeal. </p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/05/trump-asks-high-court-to-pause-another-suit-against-doge/">Trump asks high court to pause another suit against DOGE </a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/blxEWa_0Sf12PV3Z8zNjgXn9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="The morning read for Wednesday, May 21" title="The morning read for Wednesday, May 21"> <p>Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles and commentary related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Wednesday morning read:</p> <ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/20/us/politics/supreme-court-maine-legislator.html">Supreme Court Orders Maine House to Restore Voting Power to Censured Lawmaker, for Now</a> (Abbie VanSickle, The New York Times) </li> <li><a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/venezuelans-supreme-court-trump-ruling-tps-what-expect-rcna207912">What’s next for Venezuelans after Supreme Court allows Trump to revoke protected status?</a>(Daniella Silva, NBC News)</li> <li><a href="https://www.city-journal.org/article/supreme-court-trump-v-casa-inc-universal-injunctions">The Supreme Court’s Last Chance to Rein in Universal Injunctions</a> (Michael A. Fragoso, City Journal)</li> <li><a href="https://www.wsj.com/opinion/a-supreme-court-injustice-to-a-district-judge-law-policy-969be392">A Supreme Court Injustice to a District Judge</a> (Paul G. Cassell, The Wall Street Journal)</li> <li><a href="https://www.vox.com/politics/413775/supreme-court-libby-fecteau-maine-transgender-house">The Supreme Court stands up for democracy — and for an anti-trans lawmaker</a> (Ian Millhiser, Vox) </li>
</ul> <p><strong>Coming up:</strong> Tomorrow the court expects to issue one or more opinions from the current term. We’ll be live at 9:30 a.m. EDT that day for the opinions.</p> <p></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/05/the-morning-read-for-wednesday-may-21/">The morning read for Wednesday, May 21</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
LONDON — U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has signaled a U-turn on his government’s controversial decision to slash winter energy bill support for pensioners, after a…
<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/omb3ZTLf_yDC-A3gH6BFO3n9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="Supreme Court requires clerk to count votes by lawmaker censured for social media post about transgender athlete" title="Supreme Court requires clerk to count votes by lawmaker censured for social media post about transgender athlete"> <p>The Supreme Court on Tuesday afternoon required the clerk of the Maine House of Representatives to count votes by a Maine lawmaker who was censured for a social media post about a transgender athlete at a high school track meet in that state. In <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1051_h3ci.pdf">a brief unsigned order</a>, the justices granted <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/libby-v-fecteau/">a request filed by Laurel Libby</a>, a Republican who represents a district in the southern part of the state, to clear the way for her to vote while her appeal continues in the lower courts and, if necessary, the Supreme Court. </p> <p>Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the court’s ruling. In a five-page opinion, she lamented what she characterized as the “watering down of our Court’s standards for granting emergency relief,” calling it “an unfortunate development.” </p> <p>Justice Sonia Sotomayor also indicated, without more, that she would have denied Libby’s request. </p> <span id="more-528685"></span> <p>The events giving rise to the dispute before the court began in February, when Libby published a Facebook post on her official legislative account that included photos and the name of a transgender girl who had competed in, and won, the pole vault at the state track-and-field championship.</p> <p>The speaker of the House of Representatives, Ryan Fecteau, asked Libby to take the post down, expressing concern that allowing the post to remain online could create health and safety issues. When Libby declined to do so, the House introduced a resolution to censure Libby, contending that her post violated the state’s ethics code for legislators. The resolution added that as a result of the post, the school district had had to “increase security at the school causing unnecessary stress and disruption to other students, parents, teachers and school support staff and the entire community.” </p> <p>The resolution passed by a party-line vote of 75-70. When Libby refused to apologize for her violation of the ethics code she was barred under the House rules from participating in debates on the House floor and from voting on issues that the full House is considering. </p> <p>Libby and several of her constituents went to federal court, where they contended that the House’s censure of her violated (among other things) her rights under the First Amendment, as well as depriving her constituents of a vote under the 14th Amendment. They sought an order requiring Fecteau and the clerk of the House, Robert Hunt, to allow her to speak and vote on the House floor. </p> <p>U.S. District Judge Melissa DuBose of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island declined Libby’s request, holding that the claims against Fecteau and Hunt were barred by legislative immunity –the idea that legislative officials are shielded from lawsuits based on their official actions. </p> <p>Libby then went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, seeking only an order requiring Hunt to count Libby’s votes. But the court of appeals rejected that request, instead fast-tracking Libby’s appeal and scheduling oral argument for June 5. </p> <p>Libby came to the Supreme Court on April 28, asking the justices to intervene. She told the justices that “her thousands of constituents in Maine” “are now without a voice or vote for every bill coming to the House floor for the rest of her elected term, which runs through 2026,” ”including the state’s budget” and “hundreds more proposed laws,” such as its policy on transgender athletes in sports. The order that she seeks, she said, “simply restores the status quo of equal representation” by allowing her to vote again.</p> <p>Hunt urged the justices to stay out of the dispute, emphasizing that an order by a federal court intervening in the legislature’s processes “would be contrary to the policy of insulating legislative activity from ‘outside interference’ that undergirds” the Supreme Court’s cases on legislative immunity. But even if there was no immunity, he continued, Libby has not shown that emergency relief is necessary – for example, because she can still participate in all other legislative activities and therefore “continues to enjoy considerable means to advance and oppose legislation and otherwise represent her constituents.” </p> <p>In a one-paragraph order on Thursday, the justices granted Libby’s request. As is its general practice for emergency appeals, the court did not explain its reasoning. </p> <p>In her dissent, Jackson emphasized that the kind of order Libby was seeking – known as an injunction pending appeal – should be issued only in an emergency, and only when it is clear that the person or entity seeking that order has an “indisputably clear” right to it. </p> <p>But in her view, Jackson explained, Libby could not meet that high bar. The court of appeals has fast-tracked the case, Jackson noted, and Libby does not contend that she will miss any important votes while her appeal continues. Moreover, Jackson continued, the questions at the center of Libby’s case are difficult ones – hardly ones on which her right to relief is “clear, let alone indubitably so.” </p> <p>“Not very long ago,” Jackson suggested, the Supreme Court “treaded carefully with respect to exercising its equitable power to issue injunctive relief at the request of a party claiming an emergency.” But now, she wrote, the court is far less judicious in issuing injunctions, instead opting “to dole out error correction as it sees fit.” Such a development, she posited, is “both inequitable and unwise” – and, she warned, “by lowering the bar for granting emergency relief,” is likely to lead to even more requests in future cases for the court to intervene. </p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/05/supreme-court-requires-clerk-to-count-votes-by-lawmaker-censured-for-social-media-post-about-transgender-athlete/">Supreme Court requires clerk to count votes by lawmaker censured for social media post about transgender athlete</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/cfjhYXR508sNnWZS_LGH_Xn9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="Trump defends Vice President Vance’s bid to toss campaign finance law" title="Trump defends Vice President Vance’s bid to toss campaign finance law"> <p>The Trump administration <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-621/359134/20250519155738355_24-621certresponse.pdf">notified the Supreme Court on Monday</a> that it will not defend a federal campaign finance law that restricts the amount of money that political parties can spend in coordination with a candidate for office. In a brief responding to <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-621/333312/20241204134722325_NRSC%20v.%20FEC%20Cert%20Petition.pdf">a petition for review filed by the NRSC</a>, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the court that although the Department of Justice “has a longstanding policy of defending challenged federal statutes,” it has “determined that this is the rare case that warrants an exception to that general approach.” </p> <p>The justices are likely to act on the case before their summer recess. If, as seems likely, they grant the NRSC’s petition for review, they could hear argument in the case in the fall, with a decision to follow sometime in 2026. </p> <span id="more-528678"></span> <p>The lawsuit now before the court was filed in 2022 by then-Sen. (and now Vice President) J.D. Vance, along with former Rep. Steve Chabot, a Republican from Ohio. In a decision by Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit characterized as “fair points” the challengers’ contentions that the Supreme Court has in recent years been more receptive to arguments that campaign finance regulations violate the First Amendment and that “the terrain of political fundraising and spending has changed.” Nonetheless, the court of appeals concluded that it was bound by the Supreme Court’s 2001 decision in <em><a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/533/431/">Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee</a></em>, in which the court rejected a challenge to coordinated campaign expenditures. </p> <p>Represented by former U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco, the NRSC came to the Supreme Court late last year, asking the justices to strike down the coordinated party expenditure limits. Those limits, it argued, “run afoul of modern campaign-finance doctrine and burden parties’ and candidates’ core political rights.” And that violation of the First Amendment, it added, “harmed our political system by leading donors to send their funds elsewhere, fueling the rise of narrowly focused ‘super PACs’ and an attendant ‘fall of political parties’ power in the political marketplace, which has contributed to a spike in political polarization and fragmentation across the board.” </p> <p>The NRSC told the justices that they were not bound by their 2001 decision because, among other things, Congress amended the law in 2014 to permit “unlimited coordinated expenditures for certain activities, such as ‘election recounts’” and “’other legal proceedings.’” But if the justices believe that they are bound by the 2001 decision, the NRSC continued, they “should overrule that outdated decision.” </p> <p>In its filing on Monday, the Trump administration agreed with the NRSC that the court should take up the case. The coordinated expenditures restriction, Sauer contended, “violates core First Amendment rights.” Moreover, Sauer added, the court’s 2001 ruling in the Colorado case “has been severely undermined, if not superseded, by intervening legal, factual, and statutory developments,” but only the Supreme Court can reconsider that decision. </p> <p>Sauer suggested that the court should appoint an outside attorney to defend the 6th Circuit’s ruling. If the justices grant review and follow that recommendation, it would be the fourth time that they have done so for the 2025-26 term. The justices on Thursday <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/05/justices-appoint-lawyer-to-argue-restitution-case-in-the-fall/">tapped John Bash</a>, a former assistant to the U.S. solicitor general, to defend the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit in a Georgia man’s challenge to the government’s effort to collect restitution from him. </p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/05/trump-defends-vice-president-vances-bid-to-toss-campaign-finance-law/">Trump defends Vice President Vance’s bid to toss campaign finance law</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
Jamie Dettmer is opinion editor at POLITICO Europe. Russia is ready to fight a forever war. Just ask Vladimir Putin’s favorite pseudo-historian. Vladimir Medinsky served…