soc.octade.net is a Fediverse instance that uses the ActivityPub protocol. In other words, users at this host can communicate with people that use software like Mastodon, Pleroma, Friendica, etc. all around the world.

This server runs the snac software and there is no automatic sign-up process.

Admin email
social@octade.net

Search results for tag #scotus

[?]Nonilex » 🌐
@Nonilex@masto.ai

A stillbirth & post expressing her grief landed her in prison for >2 years. Experts say it’s part of a pattern

…Rousseau was arrested & charged with felony manslaughter before she was convicted in Nevada, where is LEGAL, under what legal experts say is a vague & broadly written statute that makes it a crime for any woman to take drugs [she only took cinnamon] with the intent to terminate a pregnancy.…


cnn.com/2026/05/16/us/abortion

    [?]The New Oil » 🤖 🌐
    @thenewoil@mastodon.thenewoil.org

    This case could redefine who owns your location data

    adguard.com/en/blog/location-d

      [?]internetarchive » 🌐
      @internetarchive@mastodon.archive.org

      The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Loving v. Virginia struck down bans on interracial marriage and affirmed the constitutional right to marry.

      The filings reveal the real-world consequences of those laws, including criminal penalties, forced separation, and loss of legal protections tied to marriage.

      Those filings are now available in records & briefs on the Internet Archive through a gift from the Wolf Law Library at William & Mary Law School.

      Lean more ⤵️
      blog.archive.org/2026/04/20/u-

      A two-page spread from a legal filing in Loving v. Commonwealth of Virginia, Supreme Court of the United States, October Term 1966, Case No. 395. The left page shows the cover of the Commonwealth of Virginia's Statement of Appellee Opposing Jurisdiction and Motion to Affirm, with Richard Perry Loving listed as appellant. The right page contains the opening of the Prior Proceedings section, describing the Lovings' 1959 conviction in Caroline County for contracting a marriage across racial lines and returning to Virginia, their suspended sentences, and the subsequent procedural history of their appeal. The document is a scanned microfilm copy.

      Alt...A two-page spread from a legal filing in Loving v. Commonwealth of Virginia, Supreme Court of the United States, October Term 1966, Case No. 395. The left page shows the cover of the Commonwealth of Virginia's Statement of Appellee Opposing Jurisdiction and Motion to Affirm, with Richard Perry Loving listed as appellant. The right page contains the opening of the Prior Proceedings section, describing the Lovings' 1959 conviction in Caroline County for contracting a marriage across racial lines and returning to Virginia, their suspended sentences, and the subsequent procedural history of their appeal. The document is a scanned microfilm copy.

        [?]Nonilex » 🌐
        @Nonilex@masto.ai

        restores to pill through telehealth, mail & pharmacies


        apnews.com/article/abortion-pi

          Privacy and Surveillance boosted

          [?]Nick Espinosa » 🌐
          @NickAEsp@mastodon.social

          Privacy Violating Geofence Warrants May Soon Be Legal

          youtu.be/FLGnuDQNnyA

            Privacy and Surveillance boosted

            [?]Nick Espinosa » 🌐
            @NickAEsp@mastodon.social

            Daily Podcast: Privacy Violating Geofence Warrants May Soon Be Legal

            soundcloud.com/nickaesp/gwl

              [?]internetarchive » 🌐
              @internetarchive@mastodon.archive.org

              Arguments in Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia show how courtroom openness relates to fairness, accountability, and public trust in justice, insights not visible in the ruling itself.

              The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision recognized a First Amendment right for the public & press to attend criminal trials.

              Such perspectives are now possible through 125,000+ records made accessible through a donation from the Wolf Law Library at William & Mary Law School.

              Learn more ⤵️
              blog.archive.org/2026/04/20/u-

              The top portion of the first page of legal filing in Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, Supreme Court of the United States, October Term 1979, Case No. 79-243. A Supreme Court filing stamp in the upper right corner shows the document was received on September 22, 1979, by clerk Michael Rodak Jr. The appellants are listed as Richmond Newspapers, Inc., Timothy B. Wheeler, and Kevin McCarthy, with the Commonwealth of Virginia as appellee. The document notes two companion cases.

              Alt...The top portion of the first page of legal filing in Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, Supreme Court of the United States, October Term 1979, Case No. 79-243. A Supreme Court filing stamp in the upper right corner shows the document was received on September 22, 1979, by clerk Michael Rodak Jr. The appellants are listed as Richmond Newspapers, Inc., Timothy B. Wheeler, and Kevin McCarthy, with the Commonwealth of Virginia as appellee. The document notes two companion cases.

              The official seal of the United States Supreme Court, featuring a circular design with the words “Supreme Court of the United States” surrounding a central emblem of a balanced scale of justice and a laurel wreath, symbolizing law, authority, and fairness.

              Alt...The official seal of the United States Supreme Court, featuring a circular design with the words “Supreme Court of the United States” surrounding a central emblem of a balanced scale of justice and a laurel wreath, symbolizing law, authority, and fairness.

              Monogram of William & Mary Law School featuring a white intertwined “W&M” topped by a crown, referencing the university’s royal charter.

              Alt...Monogram of William & Mary Law School featuring a white intertwined “W&M” topped by a crown, referencing the university’s royal charter.

                muddle boosted

                [?]Diligence Jones [She/Her] » 🌐
                @DeliaChristina@sfba.social

                It's hitting me how the slow arc of justice my elders fought and died to set in motion has been halted by the Calais decision.

                This morning, I was on a call with another (highly accomplished) middle-aged Black women and this is how we processed it together:

                We are realizing that we (including our younger elder millennial sisters) are likely to be the LAST generation of Black women who will achieve so much.

                This decision is not just a gutting of the VRA but the highest court's massive rejection of the idea that this country is, indeed, a land of opportunity for everyone.

                The court is now an overt and explicitly complicit engine of white nationalism.

                THAT is how much anti-Blackness has been simmering underneath this facade of 'American democracy.'

                So now, Black folks, we need to decide. Retreat, close ranks to protect our own, and/or fight for a renewed Reconstruction on top of the smoldering ruins of this gotdamn system?





                  muddle boosted

                  [?]Texas Observer » 🌐
                  @TexasObserver@texasobserver.social

                  Out today: Thanks to ' Court of Criminal Appeals, no one on death row has been granted a new trial under a law meant to protect them from junk science-based convictions.

                  Now, the debate goes to the U.S. Supreme Court. texasobserver.org/texas-top-cr

                    Privacy and Surveillance boosted

                    [?]Taran Rampersad » 🌐
                    @knowprose@mastodon.social

                    Gifted link.

                    ...Justices from across the ideological spectrum appeared concerned about our changing expectations of privacy at a time when cellphones are ubiquitous...

                    nytimes.com/2026/04/27/us/poli

                      Privacy and Surveillance boosted

                      [?]Frankie ✅ » 🌐
                      @Some_Emo_Chick@mastodon.social

                      Geofencing: The Supreme Court case that could redefine your digital privacy

                      npr.org/2026/04/26/g-s1-118359

                        Privacy and Surveillance boosted

                        [?]gtbarry » 🌐
                        @gtbarry@mastodon.social

                        The Supreme Court will decide when the police can use your phone to track you

                        modern technology enables the government to invade everyone’s privacy in ways that would have been unimaginable when the Constitution was framed. The Supreme Court has spent the past several decades trying to make sure that its interpretation of the Fourth Amendment keeps up with technological progress.

                        vox.com/politics/485973/suprem

                          [?]internetarchive » 🌐
                          @internetarchive@mastodon.archive.org

                          The arguments behind every landmark Supreme Court ruling have never been freely available to the public… until now.

                          Thanks to a gift from the Wolf Law Library at William & Mary Law School, more than 125,000 records & briefs are now freely freely available on the Internet Archive, spanning 1830 through 2019. The arguments that shaped America, including Brown v. Board of Education. Loving v. Virginia.

                          Read the full announcement ⤵️
                          blog.archive.org/2026/04/20/u-

                          The official seal of the United States Supreme Court, featuring a circular design with the words “Supreme Court of the United States” surrounding a central emblem of a balanced scale of justice and a laurel wreath, symbolizing law, authority, and fairness.

                          Alt...The official seal of the United States Supreme Court, featuring a circular design with the words “Supreme Court of the United States” surrounding a central emblem of a balanced scale of justice and a laurel wreath, symbolizing law, authority, and fairness.

                          Monogram of William & Mary Law School featuring a white intertwined “W&M” topped by a crown, referencing the university’s royal charter.

                          Alt...Monogram of William & Mary Law School featuring a white intertwined “W&M” topped by a crown, referencing the university’s royal charter.

                            [?]Nonilex » 🌐
                            @Nonilex@masto.ai

                            will decide if that decline of couples may receive state

                            The agreed Monday to review a that requires preschools receiving taxpayer money to enroll children of same-sex couples — setting up an important showdown at the high court that pits “” “rights” against .


                            cnn.com/2026/04/20/politics/su

                              [?]Nonilex » 🌐
                              @Nonilex@masto.ai

                              After years of allowing schools in some settings to receive alongside schools, the 6-3 court will now decide what to do when school leaders assert that anti- laws intended to protect & people conflict with their religious beliefs. The appeal from the Catholic parishes will likely be heard in the fall & a decision is likely sometime next year.

                                muddle boosted

                                [?]Texas Observer » 🌐
                                @TexasObserver@texasobserver.social

                                “Until a journalist is actually able to bring a civil rights lawsuit to trial against the government for violating their First Amendment rights, it’s open season on anyone doing , and especially those without an in-house lawyer handy.” texasobserver.org/la-gordiloca

                                  1 ★ 0 ↺

                                  [?]OCTADE » 🌐
                                  @octade@soc.octade.net

                                  We interrupt your regularly scheduled fearmongering to bring you this important message:

                                  SCOTUS rules that ordinary Americans do NOT owe income tax!

                                  https://youtu.be/bTLYcr-JuDc

                                  SCOTUS just contradicted a century of circuit courts and their malicious rulings subjecting Americans to the income tax. Will anyone notice?

                                  [copypasta]

                                  Dr Champion shows you the astounding words of a recent US Supreme Court decision, in which the Court explains why Americans need not pay income tax! The Court also bitch-slapped half the US Circuit Courts of Appeal in the process. A truly phenomenal decision! (Recorded December 4, 2024.)

                                  [/copypasta]


                                    [?]The New Oil » 🤖 🌐
                                    @thenewoil@mastodon.thenewoil.org

                                    to Supreme Court: Shut Down Unconstitutional Searches

                                    eff.org/press/releases/eff-sup

                                      [?]Nonilex » 🌐
                                      @Nonilex@masto.ai

                                      Yes he is a wonk, but social media savvy is important these days particularly as the electorate skews younger, & he uses platforms to inform followers on , & . Though he also uses it like a normal 32 yr old, posting pics of himself & his opinions on a number of things & can come off a bit goofy.

                                      And no doubt he has lived a life of .

                                      But he seems to be , surprisingly practical, likable & charismatic.

                                      🧵

                                        [?]Nonilex » 🌐
                                        @Nonilex@masto.ai

                                        extends its order blocking full payments, amid signals that the could soon end & food payments resume.

                                        The order keeps in place at least for a few more days a chaotic situation. People who depend on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to feed their families in some states have received their full monthly allocations, while others have received nothing.


                                        apnews.com/article/government-

                                          [?]Nonilex » 🌐
                                          @Nonilex@masto.ai

                                          The case, a potential blockbuster that asks to determine the meaning of “Election Day,” adds another high-profile fight over elections & to the court’s term. Already, the court’s docket includes a lawsuit over who can sue to challenge ’ mail-in ballot rules & a battle over the congressional district map that could gut a remaining pillar of the .

                                            [?]Nonilex » 🌐
                                            @Nonilex@masto.ai

                                            said Monday that it would hear a challenge to ’s counting of -in received after Election Day, a case that could upend mail-in ballot rules in dozens of , creating chaos leading up to the 2026 .

                                              [?]Nonilex » 🌐
                                              @Nonilex@masto.ai

                                              to Hear Major Challenge to In Laws

                                              The justices agreed to hear a challenge to ’s , a case that could upend similar measures in dozens of before the 2026 .


                                              nytimes.com/2025/11/10/us/poli

                                                Gene Cowan 🏳️‍🌈 boosted

                                                [?]Nonilex » 🌐
                                                @Nonilex@masto.ai

                                                admin renews appeal to keep full payments frozen

                                                The request is the latest in a flurry of legal activity over how a program that helps buy groceries for 42 million Americans should proceed during the historic US govt . Lower courts have ruled that the govt must keep FULL payments flowing, & SCOTUS asked the admin to respond after an appeals court ruled against it again late Sunday.


                                                apnews.com/article/snap-food-b

                                                  Gene Cowan 🏳️‍🌈 boosted

                                                  [?]Nonilex » 🌐
                                                  @Nonilex@masto.ai

                                                  🚨🚨 rejects call to overturn its decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide 🚨🚨

                                                  The on Monday rejected a call to overturn its landmark decision that legalized nationwide.

                                                  The justices turned away an appeal from Kim Davis, the former Kentucky court clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to couples after the high court’s 2015 ruling in v. Hodges.


                                                  apnews.com/article/supreme-cou

                                                    [?]Nonilex » 🌐
                                                    @Nonilex@masto.ai

                                                    The Boston-based 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals declined to halt Thursday's decision by a RI judge requiring the to spend $4 billion set aside for other purposes to ensure Americans receive full benefits.

                                                    The ruling by the 1st Circuit will have no immediate impact because on Friday Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson put a TEMPORARY hold on the lower court order by US Dist Judge John McConnell. Her temporary hold remains in place for 48hrs after the 1st Circuit decision.

                                                      [?]Nonilex » 🌐
                                                      @Nonilex@masto.ai

                                                      Update

                                                      admin CANNOT withhold full for , US appeals court rules

                                                      A federal appeals court late on Sunday allowed a judge's order to stand that directs Trump's admin to FULLY fund this month's benefits for 42 million Americans during the ongoing US government shutdown.


                                                      reuters.com/world/us/trump-adm

                                                        [?]Nonilex » 🌐
                                                        @Nonilex@masto.ai

                                                        Among the cases the justices are expected to consider is a longshot appeal from Kim Davis, the fmr Kentucky court clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples following the court’s 2015 ruling in v. Hodges.
                                                        Davis is trying to get the court to overturn a lower court order for her to pay $360k in damages & attorney’s fees to a couple whom she denied a marriage license.
                                                        could say as early as Monday what they’ll do.

                                                          [?]Nonilex » 🌐
                                                          @Nonilex@masto.ai

                                                          weighs longshot appeal to overturn decision legalizing nationwide

                                                          A call to overturn the landmark Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide was on the agenda Friday for the justices’ closed-door conference.


                                                          apnews.com/article/supreme-cou

                                                            [?]Nonilex » 🌐
                                                            @Nonilex@masto.ai

                                                            🚨🚨

                                                            but wait there’s more!

                                                            Justice has temporarily paused a lower court order that had required the admin to fully fund during the govt . In the order, Justice Jackson said she had issued the pause, called an administrative stay, to give the appeals court that will rule on the case more time to consider it. She wrote that she expected the appeals court to move swiftly & to issue a decision “with dispatch.”


                                                            nytimes.com/live/2025/11/07/us

                                                              [?]Nonilex » 🌐
                                                              @Nonilex@masto.ai

                                                              …there ain’t no rest for the wicked…

                                                              granted *emergency* appeal to temporarily block a to FULLY fund payments amid the government .


                                                              apnews.com/article/snap-food-g

                                                                [?]Nonilex » 🌐
                                                                @Nonilex@masto.ai

                                                                …During a back and forth with journalists in the Oval Office about the issue, a reporter noted that Chief Justice had asserted that were actually paid by .

                                                                Asked if he agreed that Americans were paying the tariffs, said: "No, I don't agree. I think that they might be paying something. But when you take the overall impact, the Americans are gaining tremendously."

                                                                  [?]Nonilex » 🌐
                                                                  @Nonilex@masto.ai

                                                                  The Dept changed its passport rules after handed down an executive order in January declaring the would “recognize two sexes, male & female,” based on birth certificates & “biological classification.”

                                                                  actor Hunter Schafer, for example, said in February that her new had been issued with a male gender marker, even though she’s marked female on her driver’s license & passport for years.

                                                                    [?]Nonilex » 🌐
                                                                    @Nonilex@masto.ai

                                                                    It halts a lower-court order requiring the govt to keep letting people choose male, female or X on their to line up with their on new or renewed passports. The court’s 3 liberal-leaning justices dissented from the unsigned order.

                                                                      [?]Nonilex » 🌐
                                                                      @Nonilex@masto.ai

                                                                      Thursday allowed the admin to enforce a policy blocking & people from choosing sex markers that align with their .

                                                                      The decision by the conservative-majority court is Trump’s latest win on the high court’s *emergency docket*, & it means his admin can enforce the policy while a lawsuit over it plays out.


                                                                      apnews.com/article/trump-trans

                                                                        [?]Nonilex » 🌐
                                                                        @Nonilex@masto.ai

                                                                        also mentioned the additional 10% tariff slapped on Canada for airing an advertisement he didn’t like during the World Series.

                                                                        These clearly don’t fall under the admin’s claim of a “emergency”.

                                                                          [?]Nonilex » 🌐
                                                                          @Nonilex@masto.ai

                                                                          : “We’re forgetting here is a
                                                                          very fundamental point, which is the is structured so that if I’m going to be asked to pay for something as a citizen, that it’s through a bill that is generated through , & the president has the power to veto it or not, but I’m not going to be taxed unless both houses, the executive & the legislature, have made that choice, correct?”

                                                                            [?]Nonilex » 🌐
                                                                            @Nonilex@masto.ai

                                                                            An emerging theme, from the conservative justices, is that the president’s concededly broad power to shut down generally may include the lesser power to impose . That echoes the admin’s position.

                                                                            Justice jumped into the questioning & refocused the case back on a primary argument against the tariff programs, that the gives , NOT the president, the to .

                                                                              [?]Nonilex » 🌐
                                                                              @Nonilex@masto.ai

                                                                              We are approaching the 2½-hour mark in ’ tariff oral argument. So far, the justices have heard argument in defense of Trump’s from Solicitor General D. John Sauer. They then heard the argument against the tariffs from Neal , lawyer for small businesses who challenged the tariffs.

                                                                              Now, they are listening to the argument against the tariffs by Benjamin Gutman, the solicitor general of Oregon, who represents a group of states that challenged the tariffs.

                                                                                [?]Nonilex » 🌐
                                                                                @Nonilex@masto.ai

                                                                                One major issue hanging over oral arguments is the extent to which the admin must refund tariff revenue in the event that the justices find its policies to be illegal.

                                                                                Speaking on behalf of the challengers, acknowledged it is a “difficult” question. But he generally seemed to suggest the court had many options at its disposal & could reconcile that later—including, for example, by limiting its decision “to prospective relief.”

                                                                                  [?]Nonilex » 🌐
                                                                                  @Nonilex@masto.ai

                                                                                  responded to that was one import. Not broadly applied to numerous countries across the board.

                                                                                  “Algonquin was expressly a trade statute,” Katyal said. “It’s everything this case isn’t.”

                                                                                  He said the Algonquin decision had a reference to in a specific provision & an extended, clear legislative history describing the powers given to a president.

                                                                                    [?]Nonilex » 🌐
                                                                                    @Nonilex@masto.ai

                                                                                    Justice points to FEA v. , a 1976 tariff that was upheld by .

                                                                                    The court unanimously ruled for President Gerald Ford in a case about the imposition of on oil imports, based on a different statute that also doesn’t mention the word tariffs.

                                                                                    “The court 9-0 rejected the argument” that the absence of the word tariff doomed Ford’s action, Kavanaugh said.


                                                                                    supreme.justia.com/cases/feder

                                                                                      [?]Nonilex » 🌐
                                                                                      @Nonilex@masto.ai

                                                                                      argued that the president has other authority to impose , without relying on a national emergency.

                                                                                      For example, he cited Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to combat trade deficits by imposing tariffs of up to 15% for up to 150 days without congressional approval.

                                                                                        [?]Nonilex » 🌐
                                                                                        @Nonilex@masto.ai

                                                                                        said that the government has argued in this case that could be issued later if are overturned.
                                                                                        
The government opposed a preliminary injunction in this case by saying “oh, don’t worry, we’ll give the refunds later,” he said.
                                                                                        
It’s unclear how much would be refunded or who would get money back if the tariffs are halted.

                                                                                          [?]Nonilex » 🌐
                                                                                          @Nonilex@masto.ai

                                                                                          “I wonder if you ever thought that your legacy as a constitutional advocate would be the man who revived the nondelegation argument?” asked of , who served in the Obama admin.

                                                                                          Katyal was quick to respond. “Heck yes, Justice Alito. I think Justice nailed it on the head when saying that when you’re dealing with a statute that is this open-ended – unlike anything we’ve ever seen – to give the President this power.”

                                                                                            [?]Nonilex » 🌐
                                                                                            @Nonilex@masto.ai

                                                                                            Justice asked about his argument that the admin’s violate the “nondelegation doctrine,” a legal theory that prevents from delegating its legislative powers to other branches of government. The doctrine has been pushed in recent years primarily by legal groups.

                                                                                              [?]Nonilex » 🌐
                                                                                              @Nonilex@masto.ai

                                                                                              Justice asks whether should address ’s authority to impose under authorities other than the law at issue in the case. That would be unusual, and his question indicates that he may think the administration is in trouble on the central issue in the case.

                                                                                                [?]Nonilex » 🌐
                                                                                                @Nonilex@masto.ai

                                                                                                More than 90% of imports are subject to some aspect of ’s policy — he announced this year or during his first term, or a sweeping exemption granted to some products, at least temporarily.

                                                                                                  Back to top - More...

                                                                                                  about this site - powered by snac/2.92-dev