Truthout
Increased Tax Refunds Have Been Eaten Up by Iran War Price Spikes, Experts Say
Trump's “Big Beautiful Bill” aimed to stimulate spending with bigger refunds, but inflation has swallowed the benefits.
Far Left
Raw Story
Justice Clarence Thomas' latest dissent mocked and criticized by legal experts
Far Left
The Supreme Court rejected Florida's attempt to sue California and Washington for issuing commercial truck driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants. The lawsuit followed a fatal 2024 crash in Florida involving an undocumented immigrant. While the majority declined to hear the case without comment, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissent joined by Justice Samuel Alito arguing the Court should have accepted it. Thomas's argued Florida had grounds to declare war on California if they weren't part of the same country, which sparked widespread ridicule from legal experts. "Thomas's premise here is flagrant nonsense; that California approving CDLs for people with temporary work authorization but not full legal status is the same as "sending dangerous people into another [state]," wrote Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council. "'Mongolia declared war on Uganda today, after Uganda allowed non-citizens to obtain licenses to drive on Ugandan streets,' would be the equivalent, which of course makes no sense at all," argued law professor Joe Dunman of the University of Louisville, drawing a satirical comparison.Georgetown professor Steve Vladeck noted the dissent may actually undermine arguments for mandatory Court review of state-versus-state disputes. Legal scholars questioned the reasoning's logic and coherence.Watch the video below. Your browser does not support the video tag.
Compare Perspectives
Found 8 stories
New York Post
Ex-JPMorgan banker Chirayu Rana dealt second major legal blow in explosive sex slave lawsuit
“The case law makes it really clear,” said Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Dakota D. Ramseur. “You can’t put the genie back in the bottle.”
Right
Blaze Media
Thomas Massie files for 2028 political campaign
Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky has filed for a political campaign in 2028 but says he has not decided whether to run.Massie, a self-identified libertarian, lost the Republican primary campaign for Kentucky's 4th Congressional District to Ed Gallrein, a Navy SEAL veteran backed by President Donald Trump.'This allows me to raise funds to continue my political operations supporting my position.'"I filed with FEC for the 2028 House race," Massie wrote on his social media account on Tuesday."This allows me to raise funds to continue my political operations supporting my position as a current office holder and as a potential candidate for federal office," he added. "I haven't made a final decision about which office to seek, if I run."The Republican campaign for the 4th Congressional District was the most expensive primary election for a House seat ever.Gallrein is likely to easily win the seat in the heavily Republican district."The uniparty in D.C. finally found someone willing to be a rubber stamp for globalist billionaires, endless debt, foreign aid, and forever wars in failed candidate and Lindsey Graham donor Ed Gallrein," Massie said about his competitor.Gallrein accused Massie of "burning every bridge" in Washington and voting against the president's political agenda. RELATED: Thomas Massie’s viral Epstein poll reveals stunning top belief: He lives Massie has been in office since 2012 and called the primary election an "inflection point" for the entire country. He also blamed campaign donations from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee for turning what he said would be an easy victory into a loss for him. "He was a bad guy. He deserves to lose," Trump said about Massie. Despite Massie's recent loss, his supporters still have hope for his political future. Even during his concession speech the night of the primary, the crowd encouraged him to run for president in 2028.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Right
The Gateway Pundit
NEW: Trump Provides Update After Latest Physical at Walter Reed Medical Center
President Trump on Tuesday provided an update after his latest physical at Walter Reed Medical Center. The post NEW: Trump Provides Update After Latest Physical at Walter Reed Medical Center appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Far Right
BizPac Review
Cuomo criticizes fellow Democrats for backing an incapable Joe Biden in 2024
Former New York Mayor Andrew Cuomo is trashing his own party over how the 2024 presidential race went down. The re-election of President Donald Trump, who trounced […]
Far Right
Latest Political News on Fox News
Thomas blasts SCOTUS for decision on Florida lawsuit over illegal immigrant truckers with blue-state licenses
Thomas dissents after Supreme Court refuses to hear Florida's lawsuit over states allegedly issuing CDL licenses to illegal immigrants.
Right
Alternet.org
'Bleak': Thomas and Alito torn apart for latest dissent
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a case involving a dispute between California and Florida over who can and cannot hold a commercial driver's license. Florida is making it clear that California will issue a driver's license to anyone who passes the required tests. Washington does as well. Florida restricts their drivers licenses to citizens only. On Tuesday, the full court denied the "motion for leave to file a bill of complaint." It means the High Court told Florida they couldn't file the case there. Sometimes, when states are going up against each other, they'll go directly to the Supreme Court to settle the dispute. In this case, the Court refused to hear it. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito wrote a dissent. The case involved a man from India who was given a commercial driver's license despite failing his test in Washington state. He was then involved in an accident with a minivan in which three people were killed. It was found that he didn't know enough English to read the road signs. Washington ultimately agreed that it had made a huge error in giving him the license. Thomas and Alito claim that this is "disturbingly common," though there is no evidence to support the claim. The citation was a press release from President Donald Trump's Department of Transportation, which doesn't include any evidence to verify the claim.Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy claimed there was an outbreak of crashes in the summer of 2025, though the evidence doesn't support that. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) "has identified at least five fatal crashes involving non-domiciled CDL holders. To put this in perspective, with 1,600 fatal truck crashes reported through July 2025, these five crashes represent just 0.31 percent of all fatal truck accidents," COGO Insurance cited. Alito and Thomas attacked the court for refusing to hear the case, writing, "Without explanation, the Court today denies Florida leave to file its suit and proceed to the motion-to-dismiss stage.""This Court has exclusive original jurisdiction over Florida’s suit because it involves one State suing other States," they demanded. "I doubt this Court has discretion to refuse to hear cases within its exclusive original jurisdiction," they added. They go on to write that they have been demanding that the Court revisit the Court's precedents when it comes to these interstate debates. "Even under the Court’s discretionary approach, it likely should have granted Florida leave to file its complaint," the men wrote. "Alito and Scalia are bleak," an aghast lawyer wrote in response to the dissent. One Georgetown University expert said that the men may be causing themselves more problems than anticipated with the dissent. Law Professor Steve Vladeck commented, "The Thomas/Alito jurisdictional argument (that SCOTUS must hear state-v.-state cases) isn't crazy. But one of the strongest arguments against it is that states shouldn't be able to force the Court to have to hear these kinds of suits. Thomas's dissent here may unintentionally reinforce that view.""As to the first factor, this Court has described as a 'model case' a dispute that 'would amount to casus belli if the states were fully sovereign.' In other words, the Court asks whether the dispute would be a matter of diplomatic concern in the international arena. This case appears to meet that standard," the judges write. It goes on to comment, "If Florida were an independent nation, it might resolve [this] dispute by diplomacy, by submitting it to international arbitration or by self-help measures." Those "self-help measures," said Joe Dudek, a trial and appellate attorney, appear to include war. "Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Alito: California's issuance of driver's licenses to illegal immigrants would justify Florida going to war with California if they weren't part of the same country," he said.
Left
Alternet.org
Legal analysts stunned as 3-judge panel enacts Sotomayor plan to block Alabama maps
A three-judge panel has blocked Alabama's effort to readjust maps to eliminate congressional districts that contain large populations of people of color, reported Politico on Tuesday. It flies in the face of the recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that struck down part of the Voting Rights Act, which makes it more difficult to challenge redistricting based on racially biased redistricting, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) analyzed.That didn't stop another state from stepping in on a different case. Legal analyst Josh Gerstein believes the next and final step will be a trip to the High Court. Journalist Kirk A. Bado agreed. In a thread about the case, former Alabama prosecutor Joyce Vance commented, "Even after Callais, a 3-judge panel (2 Trump appointees) enjoins Alabama from using 'new' maps for the midterm election because of evidence of racial discrimination. Writing in dissent from SCOTUS’ decision to speed Milligan, the Alabama gerrymandering case, into effect after Callais, Justice Sotomayor invited the panel to do exactly this."“Alabama cannot use Callais to legitimize its pre-Callais decision to double down on the discriminatory vote dilution that we and the Supreme Court found,” the court ruled. “And it cannot use Callais to legitimize the series of specific and unusual decisions it made to entrench that dilution. If such retroactive validation strategies were available, States would be encouraged to govern themselves according to what they think federal law ought to be, not what it is.”"This decision finds AL's 2023 map was intentionally racially discriminatory even after Callais, but the injunction expires when AL passes new districts, which is already in the works," explained New Mexico lawyer Owen Barcala. Further, he explained, "Probably won't get decisions like this in the future because the legislators in 2022 didn't know they could just explain everything away as a partisan gerrymander. Here they expressly said they weren't trying to do a partisan gerrymander.""Whoa! Everyone had assumed Alabama would get to go back to its old congressional map after Callais. But the lower court that originally struck down that map says, not so fast," characterized VotebeatUS managing editor Nathaniel Rakich. "I anticipate that Alabama will appeal soon. The Supreme Court oversees the appeal and will oversee the stay motion. Given their recent work on this, I am inclined to think they grant (but never know with them)," said conservative Eric Wess."Darkly funny how the Supreme Court keeps telling Republicans, 'Here is the approved list of ways to disenfranchise black voters, ' and Republicans are so greedy they keep failing to pass through the extremely wide loophole the court carved out for them in the VRA," one person quipped.Another commented, "'I wasn’t trying to knock down that building,' says Guy Who Rented A Bulldozer And Used It To Repeatedly Ram The Building."In 2023, three federal judges in the Allen v. Milligan case struck down the maps, saying that they had blatantly discriminated against Black voters, Democracy Docket recalled.“Try as we might, we cannot understand the 2023 Plan as anything other than an intentional effort to dilute Black Alabamians’ voting strength and evade the unambiguous requirements of court orders standing in the way,” the judges wrote. “After we and the Supreme Court ruled that the 2021 Plan, with only one majority-Black district, likely had the unlawful discriminatory effect of diluting Black Alabamians’ votes, the Legislature deliberately enacted another Plan that it concedes lacks the second Black-opportunity district we said was required. This amounted to intentional racial discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection guarantee.”
Left