Listeners, here’s what’s making headlines at the US Supreme Court this week. The Court is currently considering a case that could significantly shift the balance of power between the executive branch and Congress when it comes to US trade policy and tariffs. According to a recent analysis by FleishmanHillard, the central questions are whether the president overstepped congressional authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and whether a president can continue to adjust tariffs indefinitely by relying on a standing national emergency without renewed congressional approval. During oral arguments, justices from both ends of the ideological spectrum expressed concern about the broad and unchecked authority claimed by the White House, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioning if an initial finding should provide indefinite executive power, and Justice Neil Gorsuch voicing worries about unconstrained trade power affecting American businesses. Politico also reports that as the justices weigh Trump-era tariffs, foreign governments are closely watching, hoping the ruling could affect leverage in ongoing trade negotiations.
In another development, SCOTUSblog reports that the Court agreed this week to hear a major election law case that will decide whether federal law requires that ballots must not only be cast by voters but received by officials by Election Day. The outcome could have sweeping consequences for how close elections are managed across the country.
The Court also declined to revisit the landmark 2015 ruling on same-sex marriage, rejecting an appeal from Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. According to The Bend Bulletin, this refusal to take up the case reaffirms equal treatment under the law and signals that the justices are not interested in reconsidering or reversing same-sex marriage rights at this time.
On Monday, the Court heard oral arguments on whether individual state prison officials can be held personally liable for damages if they violate inmates’ religious rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, particularly in situations involving federally funded corrections programs. The justices probed the extent of potential liability for government officials and wrestled with questions about consent, notice, and the line between state and federal responsibility.
The Court also addressed arguments about contractor immunity, focusing on whether federal government contractors are entitled to immediate appeals when immunity from lawsuit is denied, and how that interacts with doctrines of sovereign immunity and government accountability.
Listeners, those are the highlights from the Supreme Court this week. Thanks for tuning in, and don’t forget to subscribe. This has been a quiet please production, for more check out quiet please dot ai.
For more
http://www.quietplease.aiGet the best deals
https://amzn.to/3ODvOtaThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI
