The Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that freight brokers can be sued under state negligence laws if they hire unsafe trucking companies (ones with bad safety records) that later cause accidents, crashes or bodily harm. {Ruling pdf Here}

Freight brokers are the middlemen in the transport system matching available loads with available truckers. Freight brokers have notoriously chosen the cheapest truckers and carrier companies to move freight. However, as of this ruling, federal law no longer shields the broker from liability and insurance claims anymore. Victims can now go after the broker’s insurance in addition to the Truck driver’s and/or carrier.

All of those illegal alien truckers who were hired by sketchy carrier companies will now carry a liability risk for the freight broker who might contract the haul.  Ultimately, it is the insurance companies who will drive the change by raising insurance rates on those who would contract with sketchy drivers.

VIA AP – WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed a man to sue a major logistics company after he lost part of his leg in a semi tractor-trailer crash, a decision that could have big ripple effects across the trucking industry.

The justices ruled unanimously in favor of Shawn Montgomery, whose parked vehicle was hit by a speeding truck driver on an Illinois highway in 2017. He wants to sue C.H. Robinson, the country’s largest freight broker by size, over its role in putting the driver on the road despite what he called “serious red flags.”

The decision does not mean Montgomery will necessarily win the lawsuit, which the company is contesting. But the ruling opens the door to increased liability for freight brokers, a key part of the industry.

(more…)

The Supreme Court ruled Monday its prior ruling on race-based congressional districts takes immediate effect. The order {SEE HERE} speeds up the normal 32-day timeline and puts the State of Louisiana on notice their current districts are not constitutional.

Effectively the Louisiana Governor and legislature have delayed the election to address the districts.  However, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was not happy with the immediacy ruling and wrote a dissent that was so ridiculous none of the other minority justices would sign on to it. Jackson said the majority “unshackles itself” from “constraints.” The court should follow the default rule, she insisted.

As noted by Politico, Justice Samuel Alito responded to Jackson’s accusation of political bias in a concurring opinion supported by Justices Clarence Thomas and Niel Gorsuch. Alito wrote that by suggesting that “running out the clock” by following the court’s default procedures may indicate bias “on behalf of those who may find it politically advantageous to have the election occur under the unconstitutional map.”

Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry has delayed the primary so state Republicans could get to work on a new map.

(more…)

Earlier today the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Watson v. Republican National Committee, the RNC’s challenge to a Mississippi law allowing mail-in or absentee ballots to be counted up to five days of Election Day.

Many observers have noted the court seems likely to rule that ballots for federal elections must arrive on/before election day itself.   The full oral argument is below.  LISTEN:

.

(more…)

The high court has indicated it will be releasing opinions on one or more of the previously argued cases on Friday February 20, Tuesday Feb 24, or Wednesday Feb 25.  The decision over tariffs triggered by President Trump using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) is one of the decisions now considered highly likely to surface.

If the decision doesn’t come this Friday, a rather interesting situation unfolds.  The following week falls into the Tuesday Feb 24 State of the Union address.

Typically, several Supreme Court justices sit in front row of the House floor during the speech.  The decision could be released on the morning of the speech, or justices could actually sit in the audience – knowing the outcome and the morning after the State of the Union address, the ruling could be released.

Now, there is a possibility the ruling will not come out in this cycle, but that is diminishing possibility considering the length of time the Supreme Court has sat on this opinion.

The court knows the importance of this decision, and they obviously know the State of the Union speech is scheduled to be delivered on Tuesday the 24th.  This will be an interesting dynamic to watch unfold.

(more…)

Highlighting exactly why Barack Obama, Joe Biden and James Clyburn needed to deploy a 2021 Machiavellian strategy to get her moved onto the Supreme Court, Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson (KBJ) argues for the supreme power of the DC bureaucracy that must not be challenged by the President of the United States (Executive Branch).

In the case of Trump v Slaughter, the removal of the FTC Chair, Justice KBJ argues that presidential authority must be kept in check by the unelected “professionals and experts” who make up the bureaucracy underneath him.  The “No Kings” argument is entirely ridiculous given the plenary power of the executive and the constitutional authority of the office.

Ketanji lost it today during oral arguments and went on a “No Kings” style rant about President Trump wanting to rule like a monarch, and how we should instead have many issues handled by “the experts and PhDs” like Dr. Fauci, Dr. “Rachel” Levine, and the gay bondage AIDS dude. pic.twitter.com/Z8qFZgZzsR

— Bad Hombre (@Badhombre) December 8, 2025

Ketanji Brown-Jackson was always going to be installed in the supreme court as part of the overall Obama team’s use of Joe Biden.  Merrick Garland was removed from his position specifically to create the path for KBJ to travel.  Everything about this was planned well in advance of Biden’s installation.  KBJ is to the judicial branch what BHO was/is to the executive branch.

It was February 25th, 2020, to be precise, just four days before the South Carolina Democrat primary.  South Carolina Representative James Clyburn went backstage at the presidential debate and told Biden, “You’ve had a couple of opportunities to mention naming a Black woman to the Supreme Court,” Clyburn lectured his friend of nearly half a century, like a schoolteacher scolding a child. “I’m telling you, don’t you leave the stage tonight without making it known that you will do that.” {link}

Unbeknownst to Biden at the time, just two days earlier Barack Obama and James Clyburn came to an agreement and created the most consequential alliance of the 2020 Democrat campaign.  Barack Obama the figurative and ideological leader of the movement known as “Black Lives Matter”, and James Clyburn the figurative and ideological leader of the political construct within the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) church, had struck a deal.

(more…)

The authority for the United States government to capture the electronic records of all Americans without warrant falls under the auspices of FISA-702.  The current authority expires in April of 2026.

Some administrative state defenders will argue this issue with me. However, having researched almost every aspect to the construct, and the argument, I am confident FISA-702 authority underpins the much bigger, quasi-constitutional justification for the wholesale collection of U.S. citizen metadata.  Without the 702 authority, the legal justification for the apparatus of surveillance no longer exists.  It really is that simple.

That said, there remains ZERO justification for the wholesale capture of U.S. citizen data by the government. It is not the searching of the database that presents the issue; the capture itself violates the Fourth Amendment.

The only way the government can justify the capture of U.S. Citizen data is if there is some quasi-constitutional or national security reason for it.  That’s where FISA-702 comes in.

Take away “702” search authority, and the data collection argument collapses; ANY “incidental” search of the database then loses any plausible legal justification.  702 is the camel’s nose under the tent that forms the baseline for all data records to be intercepted, stored and ultimately available for review.

This is a very key component to fully understand.  Most practical applications of surveillance are contingent upon the capture of electronic records for tracking.  Ex. – if domestic travel records are considered private papers (never argued yet), then government agencies have no right to exploit them without a valid search warrant underpinned by a national security justification.  The government, not private sector – government, tracking people becomes more difficult if privacy rules are applied.

The legal aspect runs through the 4th Amendment, which -while historically undefined in the modern era- likely stirs in the background of the recent TSA decision to provide a $45 opt-out, for the use of REAL ID in domestic transit (interstate commerce application notwithstanding).

The Fourth Amendment aspect to the ‘warrantless’ government capture of American citizen records has never been fully argued in court; the modern definitions are opaque, and the govt has a vested interest in retaining the untested status quo.

(more…)

The Supreme Court has issued an emergency stay supporting President Trump and the administration’s lawful position that SNAP benefits cannot be paid without congressional funding.

In the most bizarre example of her voting record to date, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson votes against a short-term extension to the emergency stay she herself created. [SOURCE]

On Tuesday night, the Supreme Court extended the administrative stay, keeping [Rhode Island Judge] McConnell’s ruling on hold until 11:59 p.m. EST on Nov. 13. With the House of Representatives slated to vote on Wednesday on a deal to end the shutdown, the brief unsigned order presumably gives the government time to reopen, and for SNAP benefits to resume. Jackson indicated that she would not have extended the administrative stay, and that she would have turned down the government’s request. (source)

(more…)

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent appears on ABC This Week to combat the narrative engineering of DNC transcriptionist George Stephanopoulos.

Sometimes it’s worth watching Stephanopoulos, Bill Clinton’s former Chief of Staff, because he frames the political position, current and future, for the Democrat party. Video and Transcript Below:

[Transcript] STEPHANOPOULOS: And we’re joined now by the Treasury secretary, Scott Bessent.

Mr. Bessent, thank you for joining us this morning.

We’ve just heard about all these impacts from the shutdown — government shutdown right now. Are we starting to see — see a permanent impact on the economy?

TREASURY SECRETARY SCOTT BESSENT: Sure, George.

And good to be with you.

And we’ve seen an impact on the economy from day one, but it’s getting worse and worse. We had a fantastic economy under President Trump the past two quarters. And now there are estimates that the economy, economic growth for this quarter, could be cut by as much as half if the shutdown continues.

(more…)

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick appears on NewsMax to discuss his perspective on the Supreme Court oral arguments surrounding the legal challenges to President Trump’s tariff authority.

Secretary Lutnick attended the court arguments today and is very optimistic about the outcome of the arguments.  WATCH:

.

(more…)

Today, the Dept of Justice Solicitor General Dean John Sauer provided oral arguments to the Supreme Court in support of President Donald Trump’s tariff authority. The issue at the heart of the matter is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which grants the president the power to levy tariffs.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, leaned heavily on the argument that tariffs are taxes against the American people, and all taxes must come from Congress.  The ‘tariffs are taxes’ argument seems to be the linchpin for the leftists on the court and the Gorsuch ‘conservatives’.

Solicitor Sauer countered the IEEPA tariffs are “regulations” against foreign imported goods. “The power to impose tariffs is a core application of the power to regulate foreign commerce, which is what the phrase ‘regular importation of commerce’ in IEEPA naturally evokes,” Sauer said.

The full audio of the arguments is provided below. (I’m working on the transcript). WATCH (prompted):

.

(more…)