Category

Category: Politics

Politics

Supreme Court allows Trump to halt millions in teacher training grants

<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/woEfXI0SSmsXhl0JAcuYP3n9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="Supreme Court allows Trump to halt millions in teacher training grants" title="Supreme Court allows Trump to halt millions in teacher training grants"> <img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Supremecourt-9-scaled-1-150x150.jpeg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Supreme Court allows Trump to halt millions in teacher training grants" title="Supreme Court allows Trump to halt millions in teacher training grants" style="float:right;" decoding="async" srcset="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Supremecourt-9-scaled-1-150x150.jpeg 150w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Supremecourt-9-scaled-1-570x570.jpeg 570w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Supremecourt-9-scaled-1-500x500.jpeg 500w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Supremecourt-9-scaled-1-1000x1000.jpeg 1000w" sizes="(max-width: 150px) 100vw, 150px" /><p><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fsupreme-court-allows-trump-to-halt-millions-in-teacher-training-grants%2F&linkname=Supreme%20Court%20allows%20Trump%20to%20halt%20millions%20in%20teacher%20training%20grants" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fsupreme-court-allows-trump-to-halt-millions-in-teacher-training-grants%2F&linkname=Supreme%20Court%20allows%20Trump%20to%20halt%20millions%20in%20teacher%20training%20grants" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fsupreme-court-allows-trump-to-halt-millions-in-teacher-training-grants%2F&linkname=Supreme%20Court%20allows%20Trump%20to%20halt%20millions%20in%20teacher%20training%20grants" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fsupreme-court-allows-trump-to-halt-millions-in-teacher-training-grants%2F&linkname=Supreme%20Court%20allows%20Trump%20to%20halt%20millions%20in%20teacher%20training%20grants" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_printfriendly" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/printfriendly?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fsupreme-court-allows-trump-to-halt-millions-in-teacher-training-grants%2F&linkname=Supreme%20Court%20allows%20Trump%20to%20halt%20millions%20in%20teacher%20training%20grants" title="PrintFriendly" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_no_icon addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fsupreme-court-allows-trump-to-halt-millions-in-teacher-training-grants%2F&title=Supreme%20Court%20allows%20Trump%20to%20halt%20millions%20in%20teacher%20training%20grants" data-a2a-url="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/supreme-court-allows-trump-to-halt-millions-in-teacher-training-grants/" data-a2a-title="Supreme Court allows Trump to halt millions in teacher training grants">Share</a></p><p>The Supreme Court on Friday afternoon put on hold an order by a federal judge in Massachusetts that would have required the Department of Education to reinstate more than $65 million in grants that it terminated in February because they funded programs that included diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.</p> <p>In an <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a910_f2bh.pdf">unsigned three-page opinion</a>, a majority of the court explained that the government likely would not be able to get the funds back once they were disbursed. Moreover, the majority added, the recipients of the funds would not be permanently harmed if the funds are withheld while the litigation continues.</p> <p>The vote was 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts indicating that he would have denied the government’s request. Justice Elena Kagan dissented, calling the court’s ruling a “mistake.” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in an opinion joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, also dissented, writing that it was “beyond puzzling that a majority of the Justices conceive of the Government’s application as an emergency.”<span id="more-319473"></span></p> <p>At issue in the case are two grant programs intended to address a nationwide shortage of teachers. The Department of Education canceled all but five of the 109 grants after reviews found “objectionable” diversity and equity training material in the recipient programs.</p> <p>Eight states, led by California, filed a lawsuit in federal court in Massachusetts in early March. They contended that universities and nonprofits in their states had received grants through the programs, and that the Department of Education had violated the federal law governing administrative agencies when it ended those grants. </p> <p>A federal district judge issued a temporary order that required the government to reinstate the grants that it had terminated in the states bringing the lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Myong Joun also prohibited the government from implementing other terminations in those states.</p> <p>The United States Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit declined to put the district court’s order on hold while the government appealed, but it fast-tracked the appeal itself.</p> <p>The Trump administration came to the Supreme Court on March 24, asking the justices to step in. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris asserted that unless the justices intervened, federal courts around the country will continue to exceed their powers “by ordering the Executive Branch to restore lawfully terminated grants across the government, keep paying for programs that the Executive Branch views as inconsistent with the interests of the United States, and send out the door taxpayer money that may never be clawed back.” Harris appealed to the justices to “put a swift end to federal district courts’ unconstitutional reign as self-appointed managers of Executive Branch funding and grant-disbursement decisions.”</p> <p>California and the other states urged the court to stay out of the dispute. Joun, they said, “acted responsibly — entering a narrow and time-limited restraining order to preserve the status quo while moving rapidly to adjudicate” the state’s request for a preliminary injunction. The government cannot appeal the district court’s order, in any event the government’s appeal will be moot (that is, no longer a live controversy) by early April, they concluded.</p> <p>In its order granting the Trump administration’s request on Friday, the majority first noted that although temporary orders like the one entered by Joun in this case are not normally appealable, it could nonetheless weigh in here because the order “carries many of the hallmarks of a preliminary injunction,” which can be appealed.</p> <p>And the government is likely to show, the majority continued, that Joun lacked the power to order the government to make the payments under the federal law governing administrative agencies. Although that law waives the federal government’s general immunity from lawsuits, the majority explained, the waiver is a limited one that does not apply to court orders that would require the government to pay money for a contractual obligation. Instead, the majority continued, another federal law – the Tucker Act – gives another court, the Court of Federal Claims, the power to hear lawsuits arising from contracts with the United States.</p> <p>Other considerations also weigh in favor of granting the government’s request, the majority wrote. On the one hand, the government contended (and the states do not dispute) that, once the funds are disbursed, it likely will not be able to recover them. By contrast, the majority stressed, the states have indicated that they have enough money to be able to continue their programs without the federal funding while the litigation moves forward.</p> <p>Kagan complained that the government had not defended “the legality of canceling the education grants at issue” in this case. Moreover, she continued, the states challenging the termination of the grants do say that the termination of the grant “will force them—indeed, has already forced them—to curtail teacher training programs.” And the court’s conclusion that the dispute belongs in the Court of Federal Claims, rather than a federal district court, she suggested, is “at the very least under-developed, and very possibly wrong.”</p> <p>More broadly, she wrote, the chance that the justices will make such a mistake increases when, as in this case, the justices act quickly, outside the normal briefing and argument schedule. She acknowledged that such fast action is sometimes necessary “despite the risk.” But for Kagan, “nothing about this case demanded our immediate intervention. Rather than make new law on our emergency docket,” she concluded, “we should have allowed the dispute to proceed in the ordinary way.”</p> <p>Jackson called what she characterized as the majority’s “eagerness to insert itself into this early stage of ongoing litigation over the lawfulness” of the Department of Education’s actions “equal parts unprincipled and unfortunate.” Noting that Joun’s order will expire in just three days, she emphasized that it only bars the government from implementing a “mass termination” of grants; it does not prohibit the government from deciding, under its normal review process, to terminate individual grants.</p> <p>Moreover, she continued, “there is no evidence that grantees have rushed to draw down the remaining $65 million in grant funds” in the 25 days since the order was entered. But if they did, she added, the government does have mechanisms to recover those funds.</p> <p>Jackson criticized both the government’s decision to seek emergency relief without addressing the merits of the challenge and her colleagues’ decision to grant it, “If the emergency docket has now become a vehicle for certain defendants to obtain this Court’s real-time opinion about lower court rulings on various auxiliary matters, we should announce that new policy and be prepared to shift how we think about, and address, these kinds of applications.”</p> <p>Finally, she insisted that the harm to the states challenging the grant terminations is – contrary to the majority’s suggestion – real. “In Massachusetts,” for example, she wrote, “Boston Public Schools has already had to fire multiple full-time employees due to this loss of grant-funding.”</p> <p><em>This article was <a href="https://amylhowe.com/2025/04/04/supreme-court-allows-trump-to-halt-millions-in-teacher-training-grants/">originally published at Howe on the Court</a>. </em></p> <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/supreme-court-allows-trump-to-halt-millions-in-teacher-training-grants/">Supreme Court allows Trump to halt millions in teacher training grants</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>

mingooland · · 6 min read
Read more →
Politics

Challengers to Trump’s order tell justices to allow birthright citizenship to stand

<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/rzqzp75PIZ8yOB_7XoZZG3n9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="Challengers to Trump’s order tell justices to allow birthright citizenship to stand" title="Challengers to Trump’s order tell justices to allow birthright citizenship to stand"> <img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-scaled-4-150x150.jpeg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Challengers to Trump’s order tell justices to allow birthright citizenship to stand" title="Challengers to Trump’s order tell justices to allow birthright citizenship to stand" style="float:right;" decoding="async" srcset="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-scaled-4-150x150.jpeg 150w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-scaled-4-570x570.jpeg 570w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-scaled-4-500x500.jpeg 500w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-scaled-4-1000x1000.jpeg 1000w" sizes="(max-width: 150px) 100vw, 150px" /><p><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fchallengers-to-trumps-order-tell-justices-to-allow-birthright-citizenship-to-stand%2F&linkname=Challengers%20to%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20order%20tell%20justices%20to%20allow%20birthright%20citizenship%20to%20stand" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fchallengers-to-trumps-order-tell-justices-to-allow-birthright-citizenship-to-stand%2F&linkname=Challengers%20to%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20order%20tell%20justices%20to%20allow%20birthright%20citizenship%20to%20stand" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fchallengers-to-trumps-order-tell-justices-to-allow-birthright-citizenship-to-stand%2F&linkname=Challengers%20to%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20order%20tell%20justices%20to%20allow%20birthright%20citizenship%20to%20stand" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fchallengers-to-trumps-order-tell-justices-to-allow-birthright-citizenship-to-stand%2F&linkname=Challengers%20to%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20order%20tell%20justices%20to%20allow%20birthright%20citizenship%20to%20stand" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_printfriendly" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/printfriendly?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fchallengers-to-trumps-order-tell-justices-to-allow-birthright-citizenship-to-stand%2F&linkname=Challengers%20to%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20order%20tell%20justices%20to%20allow%20birthright%20citizenship%20to%20stand" title="PrintFriendly" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_no_icon addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fchallengers-to-trumps-order-tell-justices-to-allow-birthright-citizenship-to-stand%2F&title=Challengers%20to%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20order%20tell%20justices%20to%20allow%20birthright%20citizenship%20to%20stand" data-a2a-url="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/challengers-to-trumps-order-tell-justices-to-allow-birthright-citizenship-to-stand/" data-a2a-title="Challengers to Trump’s order tell justices to allow birthright citizenship to stand">Share</a></p><p>Lawyers for two different groups of states, as well as lawyers representing immigrants’ rights groups and several pregnant women, urged the Supreme Court on Friday to leave in place three orders by federal judges that prohibit the federal government from implementing an executive order by President Donald Trump ending birthright citizenship – the guarantee of citizenship to almost everyone born in the United States. If the Supreme Court intervenes when the Trump administration “is so plainly wrong on the law,” the brief by Washington state (joined by three other states) warned, “there will be no end to stay applications and claims of emergency, undermining the proper role and stature of this Court.”</p> <p>The United States is one of 30 countries, including Canada and Mexico, that offer virtually automatic citizenship to everyone born within their borders. The concept of birthright citizenship was explicitly added to the Constitution in 1868, following the Civil War and Emancipation. The 14th Amendment provides that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside.”<span id="more-319482"></span></p> <p>In <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/">an executive order</a> signed on Jan. 20 and originally slated to go into effect 30 days later, Trump declared that children born in the United States will not be automatically entitled to citizenship if their parents are in this country illegally or temporarily.</p> <p>Before the order could go into effect, several different challenges were filed in courts around the country. In Seattle, Senior U.S. District Judge John Coughenour called birthright citizenship a “fundamental constitutional right” and said that Trump’s order was “blatantly unconstitutional.” He granted a request from Washington and three other states (Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon) to temporarily bar the government from implementing the order.</p> <p>A federal appeals court in San Francisco rejected the government’s plea to pause Coughenour’s order while its appeal moves forward.</p> <p>In Maryland, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman also issued an order on Feb. 5 that temporarily prohibited the government from applying the order. In granting a request from immigrants’ rights groups and expectant mothers, Boardman emphasized that “no court in the country has ever endorsed the president’s interpretation,” adding that she “will not be the first.”</p> <p>A federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., declined to partly block Boardman’s ruling while the government’s appeal continued. Judge Paul Niemeyer, who dissented from that decision, called the Trump administration’s request a “modest motion.”</p> <p>A third judge, Leo Sorokin of the District of Massachusetts, also blocked the government from enforcing the order, in a case filed by 18 states, the District of Columbia, and San Francisco. Like the other courts of appeals, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit refused to partly block Sorkin’s order.</p> <p>Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris came to the Supreme Court on March 13, asking the justices to partially block the three orders, so that the government would only be barred from enforcing them with respect to (at most) the individuals named in the complaints, the members of the groups challenging the order, and the residents of the states challenging the order. At the very least, Harris said, while the litigation continues the federal government should be able to make plans to implement the order.</p> <p>The briefs filed by the challengers on Friday echo similar themes. First, they told the justices, there is no emergency requiring the Supreme Court to step in. There has long been broad agreement – among the justices of the Supreme Court, Congress, the executive branch, and legal scholars – that the Constitution guarantees citizenship to virtually everyone born in this country, they said. “Being directed to follow the law as it has been universally understood for over 125 years is not an emergency warranting the extraordinary remedy of a stay,” <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A885/354760/20250404111851793_24A885_PlaintiffStates_ResponseEmergencyStay.pdf">Washington Solicitor General Noah Purcell wrote</a>. This is particularly true, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A886/354797/20250404145223563_2025%200404%20Birthright%20SCOTUS%20SPA%20Opp%20File.pdf">the brief filed by New Jersey and 17 other states</a> (along with D.C. and San Francisco) added, when the Trump administration does not “even attempt” to challenge the underlying merits of the district courts’ orders.</p> <p>Second, they contended, the court should not narrow the scope of the orders that the district courts entered, but instead leave in place the nationwide (sometimes described as “universal”) injunctions issued in each of the three cases. The Supreme Court has allowed nationwide injunctions when “necessary to provide complete relief,” Washington state explained, and in this case the whole point of the 14th Amendment was to “create a uniform, national rule for citizenship.”</p> <p>Because “children often move across state lines or are born outside their parents’ home states,” New Jersey added, “any patchwork injunction” that covered only some of the states “would be both unworkable and fail to remedy the States’ harms.”</p> <p>CASA and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, the two immigrants’ rights groups challenging the president’s order in Maryland (along with several expectant mothers), <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A884/354782/20250404123331953_CASA%20v%20Trump%20SCOTUS%20Stay%20Opposition%20-%204.4.2025%20-%20to%20file.pdf">emphasized that between them</a> they have “more than 800,000 members, spread across all 50 states.” “The only workable way to ensure that the government respects the constitutionally guaranteed citizenship of all children born to those members during the pendency of this litigation is through a universal injunction.” Granting the government’s request to block the lower courts’ orders would lead to “chaos,” they said, because existing birth certificates would not be enough to prove citizenship for any child born in the United States – including those whose parents are both U.S. citizens.</p> <p>The challengers also pushed back against the government’s suggestion that district courts more generally have been issuing too many nationwide injunctions that block the Trump administration from being able to “carry out its functions.”</p> <p>CASA insisted that the number of nationwide injunctions issued this year “must be understood in proportion to the number of major policies announced through Executive Orders.” Trump, they stressed, “has already issued more than 100 Executive Orders in his second term, far and away the most ever for this point in a presidential term.” </p> <p>And in any event, New Jersey continued, the fact that the Trump administration may be “frustrated by the scope of relief awarded in other cases, filed by other parties, involving other injuries and other administrability arguments,” does not justify the Supreme Court intervening in <em>this</em> case.</p> <p>The challengers similarly resisted the government’s contention that keeping the district courts’ orders in place would make it more difficult for the president to “address the crisis at the Nation’s southern border.” CASA noted first that this case does not involve immigration, but instead the rights of people who are already in this country. But in any event, to the extent that the order is intended to address border security, it casts too broad a net, targeting people who may have nothing to do with the southern border – such as the children of people who came to this country on work or student visas.</p> <p>And, finally, the challengers maintained that there is no reason for the court to grant the government’s request to at the very least be allowed to make internal plans to implement the executive order. CASA told the justices that, among other things, they should not weigh in on this question because the government did not make this argument in the lower court.</p> <p><em>This article was <a href="https://amylhowe.com/2025/04/04/challengers-to-trumps-order-tell-justices-to-allow-birthright-citizenship-to-stand/">originally published at Howe on the Court</a>. </em></p> <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/challengers-to-trumps-order-tell-justices-to-allow-birthright-citizenship-to-stand/">Challengers to Trump’s order tell justices to allow birthright citizenship to stand</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>

mingooland · · 7 min read
Read more →
Politics

Huawei corruption probe: 8 charged

BRUSSELS ― The Belgian prosecutor has charged eight people with active corruption, money laundering and criminal organization in an investigation into Huawei’s lobbying activities in…

mingooland · · 1 min read
Read more →
Politics

The morning read for Friday, April 4

<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/BEWwsDLun34Xhl0JAcuYP3n9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="The morning read for Friday, April 4" title="The morning read for Friday, April 4"> <img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Banner200115r-1-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="The morning read for Friday, April 4" title="The morning read for Friday, April 4" style="float:right;" decoding="async" /><p><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-friday-april-4%2F&linkname=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Friday%2C%20April%204" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-friday-april-4%2F&linkname=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Friday%2C%20April%204" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-friday-april-4%2F&linkname=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Friday%2C%20April%204" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-friday-april-4%2F&linkname=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Friday%2C%20April%204" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_printfriendly" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/printfriendly?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-friday-april-4%2F&linkname=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Friday%2C%20April%204" title="PrintFriendly" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_no_icon addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Fthe-morning-read-for-friday-april-4%2F&title=The%20morning%20read%20for%20Friday%2C%20April%204" data-a2a-url="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/the-morning-read-for-friday-april-4/" data-a2a-title="The morning read for Friday, April 4">Share</a></p><p>Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles and commentary related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Friday morning read:</p> <ul> <li><a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/04/02/supreme-court-case-truck-driver-cbd-fired/76430089007/">Supreme Court sides with truck driver who said CBD got him fired</a> (Maureen Groppe, USA Today)</li> <li><a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/trump-lawyer-john-sauer-confirmed-as-us-solicitor-general">Trump Lawyer Dean John Sauer Confirmed as Solicitor General</a> (John Crawley, Bloomberg Law)</li> <li><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/03/us/politics/john-sauer-solicitor-general-abortion.html">Trump’s Pick to Argue at Supreme Court Made His Career in Culture Wars</a> (Abbie VanSickle, The New York Times)</li> <li><a href="https://www.wcvb.com/article/karen-reads-lawyers-ask-supreme-court-to-step-in-her-case/64382032">Karen Read’s lawyers ask US Supreme Court to step in her case, arguing ‘double jeopardy’</a> (Alex Svenson & Emily Maher, WCVB5)</li> <li><a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/04/supreme-court-precedent-free-mahmoud-khalil.html?pay=1743775262482&support_journalism=please">The Supreme Court Precedent That Should Free Mahmoud Khalil</a> (Brad Snyder, Slate)</li> </ul> <div class="post_content_holder"> <div class="post_text"> </div> </div> <div class="post_category"> </div> <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/the-morning-read-for-friday-april-4/">The morning read for Friday, April 4</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>

mingooland · · 1 min read
Read more →