Supreme Court

• Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett appeared on Capitol Hill to advocate for increased security funding to address the high court's surging budget needs. • During the testimony, Justice Kagan emphasized the need for a formal enforcement mechanism to ensure security standards are met, while Justice Barrett expressed caution regarding the complexity of regulating judicial branch officials. • The request highlights growing concerns over the safety of the justices and the adequacy of current protection measures amidst a volatile political climate.

Musk distributed money to three people before the 2025 election, which he claimed was critical to Trump’s agendaBillionaire Elon Musk likely violated Wisconsin law when he gave out $1m checks to voters in the 2025 state supreme court election, a bipartisan elections panel has found.Musk distributed the money before the vote, which he claimed was critical to Donald Trump’s agenda and “the future of civilization”. Continue reading...

• Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett testified before Congress to request increased security funding following a rise in threats against the court. • This appearance marks the first time Supreme Court justices have testified before Congress since 2019, highlighting the urgency of the security situation. • The justices warned that political intimidation of the judiciary crosses a critical line and poses a direct danger to the safety of individual members of the court.

• Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett met with lawmakers on Tuesday for a regular budget hearing on Capitol Hill to discuss security funding. • Democratic Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro used the occasion to advocate for a bill banning most gifts and the implementation of an enforcement mechanism for the Court's ethics rules. • Justice Kagan expressed support for an enforcement system but cautioned that creating one is difficult, as external imposition by Congress or the President could compromise judicial independence.

• Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan testified regarding the high court's budget request, which specifically seeks increased funding for security. • Justice Barrett emphasized that the current threat level against judges is "really high," highlighting a growing safety concern for judicial officers. • Representative Dave Joyce (R-Ohio) supported the request, stating that justices must be able to perform their duties without fearing for their own safety or that of their families.

• Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett are testifying before Congress to request millions of dollars in additional security funding. • This rare appearance marks the first time justices have testified before lawmakers since 2019, driven by a surge in security risks. • U.S. Marshals Service data reveals over 600 threats against federal judges in the 2023 fiscal year, following the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

• Two US Supreme Court justices testified before Congress to request $228 million (£170.3 million) in additional security funding. • The request follows a rise in threats against the judiciary, including "swatting" hoaxes and the need for bulletproof vests. • This surge in hostility follows the conclusion of the Court's June term, which included controversial rulings on voting rights, tariffs, and birthright citizenship.

• Supreme Court justices provided rare congressional testimony to discuss critical security risks and ethical considerations facing the court. • The Court has requested a budget of $228 million for the next fiscal year, representing a roughly 10% increase over the previous year's funding. • This testimony highlights the judiciary's growing need for enhanced protection and transparency amidst increasing external pressures.

• Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett testified before the Senate to advocate for an increased security budget. • The request comes in response to a significant rise in threats directed at the judiciary and its members. • This testimony highlights the growing safety concerns facing the nation's highest court amidst a volatile political climate.

• Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett visited Capitol Hill to meet with two congressional committees regarding security requests and other judicial matters. • Justice Barrett highlighted the constitutional complexities of establishing an enforcement mechanism for the Court, citing its unique position within the judicial branch of government. • The visit underscores the ongoing tension and dialogue between the judiciary and the legislative branch over oversight and the implementation of legal mandates.

• Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett informed lawmakers on Tuesday that there has been a sharp increase in threats targeting her and other justices. • Barrett emphasized that these security risks are increasingly encroaching upon the personal and family lives of the court members. • The testimony serves as a formal request for Congress to allocate more funding to enhance the security measures protecting the justices.

• Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Representative Jamie Raskin, and Senator Ben Ray Luján have introduced legislation to impose a strict $50 limit on gifts received by Supreme Court Justices. • The bill aims to crack down on lavish gifts and align the Supreme Court's ethics rules with existing gift bans applicable to members of Congress, executive branch officials, and other judges. • This move addresses ongoing concerns regarding judicial transparency and the potential for undue influence through high-value gifts.

• Civil rights litigator Sherrilyn Ifill criticized the Supreme Court's recently completed term, describing its legal trajectory as having hit the "stratosphere" in terms of extremity. • Speaking on Slate's Amicus podcast, Ifill argued that occasional wins for democracy are overshadowed by the problematic legal reasoning the justices used to reach their decisions. • The critique highlights a growing concern among legal scholars that the Court's current ideological shift is undermining long-standing judicial norms and democratic stability.

• Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett testified before House lawmakers on Tuesday regarding the judiciary's budget request. • The primary focus of the testimony is the urgent need for increased security measures to protect the judiciary. • This request highlights growing concerns over the safety of high-court officials and the legal infrastructure.

• Republican lawmakers in Kansas have proposed a constitutional amendment to fundamentally overhaul the state's Supreme Court. • Opponents, including the coalition Kansas United for Impartial Courts, argue the change would transform impartial judges into "politicians for sale" by introducing elected judicial races. • The move is seen as a potential gateway for millions of dollars in out-of-state funding and billionaire influence to dictate judicial outcomes, mirroring trends in other state court races.

Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett appear before House lawmakers to request more security for the judiciarySupreme court justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett are testifying Tuesday in front of House lawmakers to discuss the court’s budget request, particularly the need for increased security for the judiciary.The justices appearing before lawmakers confirmed that each justice was assigned “between four and eight members of the security detail”. Continue reading...

• Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan testified before the House regarding the necessity of an increased security budget due to rising threats against judges. • In a separate legal matter, Hunter Biden won a defamation lawsuit totaling $1.7 million against Donald Trump ally Tony Bobulinski (referred to as Byrne in the text). • The lawsuit centered on false claims that Hunter Biden accepted an $800 million bribe to influence U.S. policy and unfreeze $8 billion in Iranian assets.

• The Supreme Court concluded its 2025–2026 term with a primary focus on the scope and limits of executive power. • In the *Slaughter* case, the Court affirmed broad presidential control over most "independent" federal agencies. • Conversely, in *Cook*, Chief Justice Roberts ruled against Donald Trump's attempt to fire a Federal Reserve official, citing a need for judicial checks to prevent arbitrary removals.

• Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan are scheduled to testify before Congress regarding a $228 million funding request specifically for enhanced Supreme Court security. • The broader judiciary has requested a total of $920.9 million for security for fiscal year 2027, marking a 3.2% increase of $28.9 million over the 2026 budget. • This request highlights a critical need to bolster protection for the nation's highest court amidst evolving security threats.

Rebecca Slaughter, who was fired by Trump from the FTC in 2025, worries agencies will be undermined by threat of removal if a decision is contrary to president’s favorFederal officials fired by the Trump administration are calling the recent supreme court decision a “dagger in the heart” of the civil service that will open independent federal government agencies to corruption and manipulation at the whim of the president.Since Donald Trump took office again in January 2025, he has fired more than 50 officials from federal agencies as the Trump administration openly sought to have the supreme court overturn a landmark 1935 ruling that limited the president’s power over independent agencies, known as Humphrey’s Executor. Continue reading...

Government had been forced to pay back duties to companies that imported goods into the US that were hit by Trump’s tariffsThe US government has already paid back tens of billions of dollars in tariffs it collected before the supreme court ruled them illegal, according to budget figures released on Monday.Tariffs – taxes on imported goods – have been a key part of president Donald Trump’s game economic plan since he took office again last year. Continue reading...

• A critique of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent term argues that the justices are demonstrating a growing "shamelessness" in their judicial behavior. • The analysis claims the Court has abandoned core legal virtues, including judicial restraint, consistency, and the principle of stare decisis. • This shift is presented as a dangerous trend, as the lack of discipline allows judges to exercise extraordinary power in potentially abusive ways.

• The U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority issued a ruling last month that expands presidential authority over independent federal agencies. • The decision specifically affirms that President Donald Trump possesses the power to exert greater control over these agencies' operations. • Environmental advocates warn that this shift could lead to corporate abuses and negatively impact regulatory oversight in states like North Dakota.

• The Supreme Court issued a decision on June 29 in Trump v. Slaughter, which notably overruled the precedent set by Humphrey's Executor. • This ruling reshapes the level of presidential control over federal agencies, potentially making agency leadership more susceptible to removal. • The decision matters for employers as it suggests that federal agency guidance and enforcement priorities may become more volatile and subject to change.

• The U.S. Supreme Court has concluded its current term and entered summer recess until October. • The term was marked by several high-profile rulings that resulted in a mix of legal victories and defeats for former President Donald Trump. • These decisions are significant as they shape the legal landscape and provide insight into the current ideological leanings of the justices.

• The Supreme Court ruled that the president possesses the authority to fire a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission, overriding protections previously established by the authorizing statute. • The author criticizes Chief Justice Roberts for using "bad history" and inconsistent precedents to reshape the federal bureaucracy to fit a specific view of executive power. • This decision is framed as a violation of republican principles, with the author arguing that such policy shifts should be achieved through elections and legislative action rather than judicial decrees.

• A panel of legal experts reviewed the Supreme Court's recent term, characterizing it as a period of "judicial supremacy" that significantly eroded the legislative power of Congress. • Key legal setbacks highlighted include the gutting of the Voting Rights Act in *Callais and Milligan* and the expansion of "unitary executive" power in *Trump v. Slaughter*. • Experts argue the Court has rewritten the Reconstruction Amendments and increasingly allowed its "shadow docket" to influence formal merits decisions without sufficient justification.

• The U.S. Supreme Court concluded a historic term characterized by landmark opinions and a heavy reliance on the "shadow docket" for emergency rulings. • Key legal battles focused on the intersection of gun rights and property rights, specifically through cases such as US v. Hemani and Wolford v. Lopez. • The term's decisions are significant as they address critical national issues, including the definition of U.S. citizenship and the impact of political policies on judicial rulings.