During an oval office event to highlight President Trump signing three executive orders informing all agencies of government that federal officials will not be enforcing any rule that blocks citizens from repairing or modifying their own vehicles, President Trump took questions from the media on today’s Supreme Court rulings. WATCH (prompted):
.
Now the good news. As noted by Justice Thomas, this decision when contrast against the Lisa Cook decision does not find alignment.
By a vote of 6-3, the justices struck down a federal law that bars the president from firing members of the Federal Trade Commission except in cases of “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” [PDF Ruling Here] That law, a majority of the justices ruled, violates the constitutional separation of powers between the three branches of government.
This lengthy 108-page decision supports the Unitary Theory of government in that the President can remove any agency head within the Executive Branch through plenary power, and the Legislative Branch and Judicial Branch cannot interfere. This is a major win for President Trump and beyond.
(6-3) Chief Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ALITO, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH and BARRETT joined, and in which THOMAS joined as to all but Part III–B. [GORSUCH filed a concurring opinion.] Justice SOTOMAYOR filed a dissenting opinion, in which KAGAN and JACKSON joined.
SCOTUS Blog – […] “Monday’s decision was a major victory for proponents of the “unitary executive” theory – the idea that the president should have complete control over the executive branch. Under this theory, the president should be able to fire any member of the executive branch, and laws – like the one that the court struck down – that restrict his ability to do so violate the separation of powers. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts contended that “the President must have the assistance of officers he can trust. Although it is up to the Senate to decide whether to confirm those with whom the President would prefer to work, neither Congress nor the courts may saddle him with those with whom he cannot work. Subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people.” (more)
At issue in Trump v Cook is not whether Lisa Cook can appeal her removal, but rather where her position rests while the appeal is underway. Does she work for the govt? Or is she technically removed from govt, pending appeal?
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Lisa Cook remaining in her position as a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors whom President Donald Trump had attempted to fire. By a vote of 5-4 [PDF HERE] [the court says Cook can continue to remain in her job while her challenge to Trump’s removal moves forward.
Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, and SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, KAVANAUGH and JACKSON concurred.
Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion. ALITO filed a dissenting opinion, in which GORSUCH joined, and BARRETT also filed a dissenting opinion.
This is a rather goofball decision when you consider the previous issues with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the high court prior ruling that President Trump can remove the head of the agency.
Additionally, if Lisa Cook does not work for the President of the United States, meaning if she doesn’t work for the Executive Branch, then who exactly is she working for? She doesn’t work for the legislative branch, and she doesn’t work for the judicial branch. Therefore, a de facto mysterious 4th branch of government is created.
The Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 in favor of Mississippi -vs- RNC that state legislature can decide how long after election day that qualified election ballots cast may be received. [PDF HERE] Essentially, federal election day is election day, but ballots can be received after election day for the length of time determined by state law.
Justice Barrett delivered the majority opinion, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson.
Justice Alito dissented along with Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
The Hight Court outlined that congress could change the ability of the states by changing the statutory language of the federal election law to require ballots be received by election day. As long as federal law does not outline the deadline for ballot reception, states can extend that process at their legislative discretion. THIS IS A HOT MESS FUBAR!
Hopefully, this will speed up the process to remove millions of migrants who were previously shielded by “Temporary Protected Status.” {Ruling Here}
In a 6-3 decision Thursday, the Supreme Court said the administration can strip temporary protected status (TPS) from migrants who arrived from Islamist Syria and the ‘sh!thole‘ nation of Haiti.
Given the ridiculous way Obama and Biden defined crisis, the ruling appears to have removed legal obstacles blocking Trump and Rubio from ending the temporary protected status for immigrants from 13 countries, including Venezuela, Honduras and Afghanistan. Get rid of all of them. Illegal migrants do not have constitutional protection.
As noted by the Supreme Court, there is no valid claim of discrimination that applies to the case because, well, quite simply, the Trump administration appears to be against every TPS designation that expires regardless of the nationality.
[SOURCE]
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.
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.
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:
.
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.
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.