Big Cases Still Waiting for Supreme Court Decisions in 2017

Uncategorized 0 Comments

Big Cases Still Waiting for Supreme Court Decisions in 2017

WASHINGTON, DC — Seventeen cases from this year’s Supreme Court term are still pending, with decisions expected in the next eight days. Religious liberty, the constitutional rights of illegal aliens, and free-speech rights to express messages some people find offensive are several of the high-profile issues raised in the remaining cases.
Some notable cases include:

In Jennings v. Rodriguez, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause entitles aliens being held in federal facilities to a bond hearing, such that if they post bond they could be released into the U.S. civilian population. Justices asked hard questions of both sides during oral argument in November.
In Sessions v. Dimaya, another case involving aliens, the Court will decide whether a key provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) governing the deportation of certain aliens is so vague that it violates the Due Process Clause.

In Lee v. Tam, the justices will decide whether the provision of federal law that authorizes denying trademark protection because of content some consider disparaging violates the First Amendment. The Federal Circuit invalidated the restriction, which has direct application to the Washington Redskins and billboards expressing views critical of militant Islam.
In Ziglar v. Abbasi, the High Court will determine whether a plaintiff can directly sue individual FBI agents for detaining illegal aliens after the 9/11 attacks.
In Hernandez v. Mesa, the Court will decide whether Fourth Amendment protections apply to a cross-border shooting involving U.S. agents on the American side and a Mexican across the border, where the Mexican died and his family is suing the American agents. During oral argument, the justices focused heavily on the foreign-affairs aspect of this situation and whether the U.S. State Department should be in the lead, rather than courts.

In Packingham v. North Carolina, the justices will consider whether registered sex offenders can be banned from social network platforms like Facebook, given the number of children the offender could have contact with.
In Murr v. Wisconsin, the Supreme Court will consider aspects of when government so completely regulates a piece of property that the land becomes unusable by the owner, such that this triggers the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause requiring the government to pay the owner. The question here is how much of the land the government must compensate the owner for.
In Lee v. United States, a legal alien allowed to stay permanently in the United States pleaded guilty to a nonviolent drug crime involving ecstasy, not knowing that his plea deal would automatically result in his deportation. The case is about whether his rejecting the deal was irrational, such that it was ineffective counsel for his lawyer to fail to explain the deportation consequences of the deal. Judge Alice Batchelder of the Sixth Circuit wrote for her appeals court that his rejection was rational. However, after explaining that binding precedent required her to do so, she flagged several problematic aspects of those precedents so persuasively that the Supreme Court decided to reconsider them.

In Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer, the Supreme Court is considering whether Blaine Amendments — which forbid state funds from going to providers of public service programs only when those providers have a religious mission — violates the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause.
In Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of San Francisco County, the justices are exploring how far the Fourteenth Amendment permits state courts to have jurisdiction over out-of-state businesses.
The justices are currently scheduled to hand down all remaining decisions this year on the next two Mondays, June 19 and June 26. However, the Thursday in between, June 22, is often converted into another daily session for handing down decisions. If there are still undecided cases after June 26, the Court could also announce one final session later that week.

One uncommon wild card in play this year is that, for most of the term, there was a vacant seat on the Supreme Court. Now that Justice Neil Gorsuch has been confirmed to the seat formerly held by the iconic Justice Antonin Scalia, cases that were originally 4-4 tie votes might be rescheduled for a new hearing next year, with Gorsuch as the tiebreaking vote.
Ken Klukowski is senior legal editor for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @kenklukowski.

Uncategorized 0 Comments

Chuck Todd on VA Shooting: ‘We Are All to Blame’ for the ‘Toxic Stew’ of Political Discourse

Chuck Todd on VA Shooting: ‘We Are All to Blame’ for the ‘Toxic Stew’ of Political Discourse

by Pam Key14 Jun 20170 14 Jun, 2017
14 Jun, 2017

Wednesday on MSNBC’s “MTP Daily,” host Chuck Todd reacted to the shooting at a congressional baseball practice in Alexandria, VA, saying that we were “all to blame.”

Todd said, “Folks, some want to blame the left or the right or us in the media. But here’s who it seems too many folks don’t want to blame themselves. We are all to blame. This toxic stew that passes for political discourse seems beyond repair in the current moment. Just look at social media.”
“For too long, our collective politics has demonized the other side for caustic behavior while rationalizing that same behavior when it comes from someone who shares their politics,” he continued. “Maybe we ought to borrow another phrase that we’re all asked to do, when you see something, say something. And for political leaders, when you see caustic behavior, no matter if that person agrees with you, why don’t you say something to them?”

Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN

Read More Stories About:
Breitbart TV, Chuck Todd

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLESLIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

Uncategorized 0 Comments

Judge Allows Texas Man to Legally Change His Last Name to ‘Trump’

Judge Allows Texas Man to Legally Change His Last Name to ‘Trump’

by Katherine Rodriguez22 Jun 20170 22 Jun, 2017
22 Jun, 2017

A judge granted one Texas man’s request to legally change his last name to “Trump” in an homage to the president.
Ernesto Trump, 34, who was formerly known as  Ernesto Baeza Acosta, changed his name legally in court Monday for professional reasons, the San Antonio Express-News reported.

“I want to use my new name because it is more suitable for professional purposes,” Ernesto wrote in the petition to the court.
Ernesto, who is a fan of the president, said he had thought about making the change ever since President Trump began his bid for the White House.

Ernesto, a resident of Odessa and a YouTube star, calls himself,  “the president’s son” and “the undeportable one” on his Facebook page.
His YouTube channel, which mostly contains videos of Ernesto undertaking challenges that are likely to go viral, has over 7,000 subscribers.
Ernesto said his parents came to the U.S. illegally from Mexico over 40 years ago but have obtained green cards since then. His mother, who did not support the president, was not a fan of Ernesto’s name change.

The “Texas Trump” said he had supported President Trump from the beginning but did not vote for the president in 2016 because he was not registered to vote, the New York Post reported.
In his latest video, Ernesto had a message for President Trump, calling for some “father-son time.”
“I don’t want no money or nothing from you,” he said. “I just want to spend some father-son time with you.”

“Maybe we would go to Wrigley Field, eat a hot dog, drink a pint of beer. You know, go to the movies. Maybe I can go see my step brothers and sister and stepmom, and you know, eat dinner at the White House,” Ernesto added.