Ketanji Brown Jackson

Oct. 7 (UPI) — The Supreme Court‘s conservative justices signaled Tuesday they were likely to side with a Christian therapist who argued that Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy violates her free speech rights.

The case stems from a lawsuit by Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor whose practice is based in Christianity who says the Colorado law prevents her from assisting her minor clients who seek “to live a life consistent with their faith.”

Conversion therapy can include psychological, behavioral, physical and faith-based practices that are intended to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identification. Opponents point to evidence that it is harmful and leads to more serious psychological problems for people who experience it. Roughly half of states have banned it.

However, the court’s justices argued whether the conversion therapy banned by Colorado’s law is harmful to minors and if it was a violation of the Constitution’s free speech protections or regulation of medical treatment.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said that Colorado’s law would mean different treatment for an adolescent male who approaches a licensed therapist hoping to lessen his attraction for other males versus another adolescent male who wants to feel something different.

“It looks like blatant viewpoint discrimination,” he said.

Colorado is one of 23 states that ban conversion therapy, which is the practice of attempting to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity through therapy.

Critics call the technique a pseudoscience, and the American Psychological Association and several other mental health and LGBTQIA+ organizations have come out in opposition to its use.

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser said a Supreme Court ruling striking down Colorado’s law could imperil not only efforts to prevent conversion therapy but other healthcare treatments that medical experts say are harmful or ineffective.

“For centuries, states have regulated professional healthcare to protect patients from substandard treatment,” he said, according to NBC News. “Throughout that time, the First Amendment has never barred states’ ability to prohibit substandard care, regardless of whether it is carried out through words.”

James Campbell, the lawyer for Chiles argued that the studies showing the harms of conversation therapy are flawed because they lump together voluntary conversations between a client and therapist with coercive measures, like shock therapy.

Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal firm, is representing Chiles in the case.

Shannon Stevenson, the state’s solicitor general, argued that the harm in conversion therapy “comes from telling someone there’s something innate about yourself you can change.”

“Then you spend all kinds of time and effort trying to do that,” she said. “And you fail, but you bore the burden.

A lower court ruling said the Colorado law is a restriction on mental health treatment, not on speech. In a ruling by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, justices said the ban aligned with medical consensus that conversion therapy is “ineffective and harmful” and “rationally serves” the interests of the state in protecting minors.

Stevenson reiterated that argument saying that “Colorado’s law regulates treatments only and because it enforces the professional standard of care,” not speech.

However, conservative members of the court didn’t seem to buy that argument.

“Just because they’re engaged in conduct doesn’t mean that their words aren’t protected,” Chief Justice John Roberts said.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of the court’s liberals, brought up how the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors. She asked if Colorado’s law wasn’t just the functional equivalent” of Tennessee’s law.

“I realized that there were two different constitutional provisions at issue, but the regulations work in basically the same way, and the question of scrutiny applies in both contexts,” she said. “So it just seems odd to me that we might have a different result here.”

Hashim Mooppan, a principal deputy solicitor general representing the Trump administration, argued that Tennessee’s law concerned drugs and medical treatment while Colorado’s law was focused on what is said during talk therapy sessions.

Oct. 3 (UPI) — The Trump administration can resume its deportation of Venezuelans after the Supreme Court again overturned a lower court’s block on ending the temporary protected status.

The Department of Homeland Security in August ended the TPS protection for about 300,000 “migrants” from Venezuela, which U.S. District Court for Northern California Judge Edward Chen blocked on Sept. 5.

Chen’s ruling is the second in which he blocked the Trump administration’s effort to end protected status for Venezuelans, which the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld in August, The Hill reported.

The Supreme Court overturned Chen’s first ruling when the Trump administration sought an emergency hearing in May, according to The New York Times.

Chen, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, afterward said the Supreme Court ruling lacked detail and again blocked the Trump administration from ending the TPS protection.

The Supreme Court agreed to review the matter again and repeated its earlier ruling.

“Although the posture of the case has changed, the parties’ legal arguments and relative harms generally have not,” the unsigned Supreme Court order says.

“The same result that we reached in May is appropriate here.”

Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor said they would have denied the emergency relief request by the Trump administration.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson called the court’s ruling “another grave misuse of our emergency docket” in her dissenting opinion.

“We once again use our equitable power to allow this administration to disrupt as many lives as possible as quickly as possible,” Jackson said.

She accused the Supreme Court’s majority of GOP-appointed justices of “privileging the bald assertion of unconstrained executive power over countless families’ pleas for the stability our government has promised them.”

Shortly before leaving office, former President Joe Biden on Jan. 17 extended the temporary protected status for Venezuelans for another two years.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem ended the protected status within days of the Senate confirming her nomination on Jan. 25.

Sept. 22 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to revisit a 90-year precedent, preventing presidents from removing independent regulators without just cause. The high court, which is scheduled to hear the case in December, will allow President Donald Trump‘s firing of Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter to move forward.

The case centers on Trump’s attempt to remove Slaughter, who has been with the FTC since 2018. While a decision is not expected until next summer, the court order allows Trump to fire Slaughter despite dissents from the court’s liberal judges.

“Our emergency docket should never be used, as it has been this year, to permit what our own precedent bars,” wrote Justice Elena Kagan, who was also joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

“Still more, it should not be used, as it also has been, to transfer government authority from Congress to the president, and thus to reshape the nation’s separation of powers,” Jackson added.

Earlier this month, Chief Justice John Roberts issued a brief administrative stay to an order by a district court that found Trump’s firing of the democratic FTC commissioner was illegal.

Attorney General Pam Bondi applauded Monday’s decision, saying it “secures a significant Supreme Court victory, protecting President Trump’s executive authority.”

“In a 6-3 decision, the Court stayed a lower court ruling which prevented the president from firing a member of the FTC’s board,” Bondi wrote Monday in a post on X. “This helps affirm our argument that the president, not a lower court judge, has hiring and firing power over executive officials.”

Trump fired Slaughter and another Democratic FTC commissioner, Alvaro Bedoya, in March. Slaughter sued Trump of illegally firing her without just cause, despite congressional protections.

“It is of imperative importance that any doubts concerning the constitutionality of traditional independent agencies be resolved promptly,” Slaughter’s lawyers wrote in court.

The Supreme Court’s 1935 decision, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, upheld the FTC’s protections from removal as constitutional.

The Supreme Court has also allowed Trump to fire National Labor Relations Board member Gwynn Wilcox and Merit Systems Protection Board member Cathy Harris.

Sept. 8 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday overturned a lower court’s rulings blocking federal immigration officials from conducting raids in California seen by critics as unconstitutional racial profiling.

The high court voted 6-3 in favor of lifting temporary restraining orders preventing Immigration and Customs Enforcement from carrying out the raids.

“This is a win for the safety of Californians and the rule of law,” Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin of the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, said in a statement.

“DHS law enforcement will not be slowed down and will continue to arrest and remove the murderers, rapists, gang members and other criminal illegal aliens that Karen Bass continues to give safe harbor.”

Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong issued two restraining orders in July, saying roving patrols “indiscriminately” rounded up people without reasonable suspicion, a violation of the Fourth Amendment. She also said that ICE denied the individuals access to lawyers, a violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority on Monday, said it was reasonable to question people gathered in places seeking day work, landscaping, agriculture, construction and other types of jobs that don’t require paperwork and are therefore attractive to undocumented immigrants. He said reasonable suspicion cannot rely alone on ethnicity, but he called it a “relevant factor.”

“Under this court’s precedents, not to mention common sense, those circumstances taken together can constitute at least reasonable suspicion of illegal presence in the United States,” Kavanaugh wrote.

The three dissenters — Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — agreed with civil rights activists who said that ICE’s approach of questioning people who appear to be of Hispanic origin or work in certain jobs would target many U.S. citizens and legal immigrants.

“We should not have to live in a country where the government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish and appears to work a low-wage job,” Sotomayor wrote in her dissent. “Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent.”

The high court’s decision was swiftly rebuked by civil rights organizations, unions and Democrats.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, who has fought against President Donald Trump‘s raids, described the action as an “attack” that not only targeted her city, but “an attack on every person in every city in this country.”

“Today’s ruling is not only dangerous — it’s un-American and threatens the fabric of personal freedom in the U.S.,” she said in a statement on X.

The federal government raids in Los Angeles began June 6, sparking protests that prompted Trump to deploy thousands of National Guardsmen to the city.

On July 2, several people who were arrested in the operation filed a class action lawsuit against the federal government, calling on the courts to end the stop and arrests and to up hold due process and rights for immigration detainees to access to legal counsel.

Janet Murguia, president and CEO of UnidosUS, a nonpartisan nonprofit Hispanic civil rights organization, lambasted the ruling as opening the door for the federal government to indiscriminately stop and arrest minorities.

“It authorizes targeting by authorities that makes all immigrants, Hispanics and other non-White Americans, suspects simply because of the color of their skin or the language they speak. In doing so, the court has put the civil rights of every person in the United States at risk, Murguia said in a statement emailed to UPI.

“The Supreme Court, without proper review of explanation, has signaled that the administration can, with impunity, use profiling-based tactics nationwide.”

July 23 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed the Trump administration to remove three members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission as the case proceeds through the courts in another emergency appeal on firings backed by the conservative-dominated court.

The court, in a 6-3 opinion along ideological lines, ruled in a lawsuit brought by Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric and Richard Trumka Jr., who were nominated by President Joe Biden and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

In a dissent by Justice Elena Kagan, joined by fellow liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, she said the court majority decided on the emergency appeal to “destroy the independence of an independent agency, as established by Congress.”

The majority opinion was unsigned and based upon an earlier 6-3 order that allowed the dismissal of two independent labor boards in Trump vs. Wilcox: the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board.

“Although our interim orders are not conclusive as to the merits, they inform how a court should exercise its equitable discretion in like cases,” the court ruled. “The stay we issued in Wilcox reflected ‘our judgment that the government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty.’

“The same is true on the facts presented here, where the Consumer Product Safety Commission exercises executive power in a similar manner as the National Labor Relations Board, and the case does not otherwise differ from Wilcox in any pertinent respect.”

The order is stayed pending disposition by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond, Va. On July 1, the three-judge panel rejected Trump’s request for an administrative stay pending appeal.

“Congress lawfully constrained the President’s removal authority, and no court has found that constraint unconstitutional,” the appeals court said. “The district court correctly declined to permit a President — any President — to disregard those limits.”

District Judge Matthew Maddox found on June 13 that Trump’s removal was unlawful and blocked it. Maddox, who serves in Maryland, was appointed by President Joe Biden.

“Depriving this five-member commission of three of its sitting members threatens severe impairment of its ability to fulfill its statutory mandates and advance the public’s interest in safe consumer products,” Maddox wrote in his decision. “This hardship and threat to public safety significantly outweighs any hardship defendants might suffer from plaintiffs’ participation on the CPSC.”

The terms of the five members are staggered to overlap during presidencies.

Boyle’s term was to end in October after filling a vacancy in 2022, with Hoehn-Saric in October 2027 and Trumka in October 2028. The board consists of five members, and they are operating as a two-member quorum, which is allowed for six months.

The remaining members are Acting Chairman Peter Feldman, who was appointed by Trump during his first term, and Republican Douglas Dziak, who was appointed by Biden in 2024.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in a court ruling that Maddox’s decision has “sown chaos and dysfunction” at the agency.

In May, the three commissioners were notified their positions were terminated immediately. A president can legally only remove a commissioner for neglect of duty of malfeasance.

The court has allowed the termination of employees as the cases proceed through the courts.

Lower court judges have relied on a decision in 1935, called Humphrey’s Executor vs. United States, about the mass firings. The Supreme Court has said it will act on this matter.

On July 14, the justices allowed the Trump administration to mass fire half of the Education Department. Trump wants the agency abolished, and the court has not ruled on that decision, which requires a vote by the U.S. Senate.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission, which was created in 1972, protects consumers from dangerous products, including issuing safety standards and recalls.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat representing Minnesota, criticized the decision, saying: “For over 50 years, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has been free from politics so it can remain focused on its core mission of keeping Americans safe – from banning lead paint, to ensuring electronics aren’t fire hazards, to making swimming pools safe for kids. Last year alone, the Commission recalled 153 million unsafe items.”

“By firing the three Democratic commissioners, the President has undermined the independent structure of the Commission and its critical work — and the Supreme Court is letting it happen,” added the member of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.

July 16 (UPI) — The Trump administration has deported five migrants convicted of violent crimes to the African nation of Eswatini, the Department of Homeland Security said.

The migrants from Vietnam, Jamaica, Laos, Cuba and Yemen arrived in the small Southeast African nation Tuesday night, DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said on social media, announcing that their flight had landed.

“This flight took individuals so uniquely barbaric that their home countries refused to take them,” she said in a statement, adding that it was thanks to President Donald Trump and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem that “they are off of American soil.”

The announcement marks the second instance of the Trump administration shipping migrants to a third country since the Supreme Court earlier this month said it could deport eight migrants to South Sudan.

The conservative-leaning Supreme Court ruling ended litigation over the legality of the United States deporting noncitizens to a third country other than their own without permitting them the opportunity to argue they would be tortured or receive degrading treatment in the new country.

The justices did not give a detailed explanation for their reasoning, though liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented, arguing the Supreme Court’s refusal to justify its decision “is indefensible.”

“Today’s order clarifies only one thing: Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial,” she wrote.

It was not clear when the United States made a deal with Eswatini to accept its deported migrants.

The majority of those who landed in Eswatini late Tuesday had been convicted of murder, among other charges. One migrant was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment for the sexual abuse of a minor.

The announcement comes amid reports that a new Immigration and Customs Enforcement memo states that “effective immediately” the Trump administration may deport migrants to a third country with as little as six hours’ notice as long as the receiving country has given the United States assurances that the deportee “will not be persecuted or tortured.”

June 26 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, the nonprofit’s arm that covers South Carolina, can’t sue the state over its closing off of the nonprofit’s Medicaid funding because it provides abortions.

“The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed our right to exclude abortion providers from receiving taxpayer dollars,” wrote Gov. Henry McMaster, R-S.C., in an X post Thursday.

“Seven years ago, we took a stand to protect the sanctity of life and defend South Carolina’s authority and values,” he added, “and today, we are finally victorious.”

The 6-3 decision followed the court’s ideological makeup, with the three liberal judges in dissent while the six conservative judges ruled in support.

The court’s syllabus noted 42 U.S. Code Section 1983, which allows private parties to file suit against state officials who violate their Constitutional rights. However, in the opinion of the Court, which was delivered by Justice Neil Gorsuch, he wrote that “federal statutes do not automatically confer [Section 1983]-enforceable ‘rights.'”

“This is especially true of spending-power statutes like Medicaid, where ‘the typical remedy’ for violations is federal funding termination, not private suits,” he continued.

“No court has addressed whether that Medicare provision creates [Section 1983] rights,” he later wrote.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the dissent, and she also referred to Section 1983.

“South Carolina asks us to hollow out that provision so that the State can evade liability for violating the rights of its Medicaid recipients to choose their own doctors,” Jackson stated. “The Court abides South Carolina’s request. I would not.”

South Carolina had announced in July of 2018 that Planned Parenthood could no longer participate in the state’s Medicaid program, under a state law that prohibits the use of its own public funding for abortions.

The order further affected patients in that it had the effect of also blocking Planned Parenthood patients from receiving services such as breast exams, sexually transmitted diseases and contraception.

Planned Parenthood South Atlantic announced on its social media platform Thursday that, “Today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that people using Medicaid in South Carolina no longer have the freedom to choose Planned Parenthood South Atlantic as their sexual and reproductive health care provider.”

“If you are a patient using Medicaid, keep your appointment,” the post continued. “We’re still here to provide you with the low or no cost care you deserve.”

The post concluded with “We’re in this with you, and we aren’t going anywhere.”

June 20 (UPI) — Fossil fuel companies can challenge California setting stricter emissions standards for cars, the U.S Supreme Court ruled Friday.

California has stipulated that only zero-emission cars will be able to sold there by 2035, with a phased increase in ZEV requirements for model years 2026-2035. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has set a fleet-wide average of 49 mpg by model year 2026, with higher standards in the following years.

In the 7-2 opinion authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the court ruled that oil producers have legal standing to sue over California’s clean car standards approved by the U.S. EPA. Dissenting were Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, two of the court’s three Democratic-appointed justices.

“This case concerns only standing, not the merits,” Kavanaugh wrote in the 48-page opinion that included two dissents. “EPA and California may or may not prevail on the merits in defending EPA’s approval of the California regulations. But the justiciability of the fuel producers’ challenge to EPA’s approval of the California regulations is evident.”

The Clean Air Act supersedes state laws that regulate motor vehicle emissions, but it allows the EPA to issue a waiver for California. Other states can copy California’s stricter standard.

The states are Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and the District of Columbia.

The EPA, when Barack Obama was president, granted a waiver for California, but President Trump partially withdrew it during his first term.

When Joe Biden became president in 2021, the EPA reinstated the waiver with the tougher emissions.

Last week, Trump signed a bi-partisan congressional resolution to rescind California’s electric vehicle mandate. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, called this move illegal and will sue over this order.

“You couldn’t buy any other car except an electric-powered car, and in California, they have blackouts and brownouts,” Trump said last week. “They don’t have enough electricity right now to do the job. And, countrywide, you’d have to spend four trillion dollars to build the firing plants, charging plants.”

Gasoline and other liquid fuel producers and 17 Republic-led states sued, arguing California’s regulations reduce the manufacturing of gas-powered cars. The lead plaintiff was Diamond Alternative Energy, which sells renewable diesel, an alternative to traditional petroleum-derived diesel. Valero Energy Corp. also joined in the suit.

Automakers were involved in the case.

California lawyers argue the producers have no legal standing, which requires showing that a favorable court ruling would redress a plaintiff’s injury.

The EPA said consumer demand for electric cars would exceed California’s mandate and hence the regulations wouldn’t have an impact.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected the lawsuit.

“If invalidating the regulations would change nothing in the market, why are EPA and California enforcing and defending the regulations?” Kavanaugh wrote.

“The whole point of the regulations is to increase the number of electric vehicles in the new automobile market beyond what consumers would otherwise demand and what automakers would otherwise manufacture and sell.”

Sotomayor and Jackson separately wrote the case may become moot.

“I see no need to expound on the law of standing in a case where the sole dispute is a factual one not addressed below,” Sotomayor wrote.

She said she would have sent the case back to the lower court to look at the issue again.

Jackson said her colleagues weren’t applying the standing doctrine evenhandedly and it can erode public trust in judges.

“This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens. Because the Court had ample opportunity to avoid that result, I respectfully dissent,” Jackson wrote.

The ruling does not prevent California and other states from enforcing standards, Vickie Patton, general counsel of the Environmental Defense Fund, told The Guardian.

“The standards have saved hundreds of lives, have provided enormous health benefits, and have saved families money,” Patton said. “While the Supreme Court has now clarified who has grounds to bring a challenge to court, the decision does not affect California’s bedrock legal authority to adopt pollution safeguards, nor does it alter the life-saving, affordable, clean cars program itself.”

June 7 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court is allowing members of the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency to access personal Social Security Administration data.

On Friday, the Court’s six conservatives granted an emergency application filed by the Trump administration to lift an injunction issued by a federal judge in Maryland. Opposing the injunction were the three liberal justices: Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

There are 69 million retirees, disabled workers, dependents and survivors who receive Social Security benefits, representing 28.75% of the U.S. population.

In a separate two-page order issued Friday, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration for now to shield DOGE from freedom of information requests seeking thousands of pages of material. This vote also was 6-3 with no written dissenting opinions.

In the two-page unsigned order on access, the court said: “We conclude that, under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work.”

The conservatives are Chief Justice John Roberts, and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Three of them were nominated by President Donald Trump during his first term.

U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander, appointed by President Barack Obama, had ruled that DOGE staffers had no need to access the specific data. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Virginia, declined to block Hollander’s decision.

The lawsuit was filed by progressive group Democracy Forward on behalf of two unions, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and the American Federation of Teachers, as well as the Alliance for Retired Americans.

They alleged broader access to personal information would violate a federal law, the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.

“This is a sad day for our democracy and a scary day for millions of people,” the groups said in a statement. “This ruling will enable President Trump and DOGE’s affiliates to steal Americans’ private and personal data. Elon Musk may have left Washington, D.C., but his impact continues to harm millions of people. We will continue to use every legal tool at our disposal to keep unelected bureaucrats from misusing the public’s most sensitive data as this case moves forward.”

Social Security Works posted on X: “No one in history — no commissioner, no president, no one — has ever had the access that these DOGE minions have.”

White House spokesperson Liz Huston after the ruling told NBC News that “the Supreme Court allowing the Trump Administration to carry out commonsense efforts to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse and modernize government information systems is a huge victory for the rule of law.”

Brown Jackson wrote a nine-page dissenting opinion that the “Government fails to substantiate its stay request by showing that it or the public will suffer irreparable harm absent this Court’s intervention. In essence, the ‘urgency’ underlying the government’s stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes.”

She concluded her dissent by writing: “The Court opts instead to relieve the Government of the standard obligations, jettisoning careful judicial decisionmaking and creates grave privacy risks for millions of Americans in the process.”

Kathleen Romig, who worked as a senior adviser at the agency during the Biden administration, told CNN that Americans should be concerned about how DOGE has handled highly sensitive data so far. She said the personal data runs “from cradle to grave.”

“While the appeals court considers whether DOGE is violating the law, its operatives will have ‘God-level’ access to Social Security numbers, earnings records, bank routing numbers, mental and reproductive health records and much more,” Romig, who now is director of Social Security and disability policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

When Trump became president again on Jan. 20, he signed an executive order establishing DOGE with the goal of “modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity.”

Nearly a dozen DOGE members have been installed at the agency, according to court filings. In all, there are about 90 DOGE workers.

DOGE, which was run by billionaire Elon Musk until he left the White House one week ago, wants to modernize systems and detect waste and fraud at the agency.

“These teams have a business need to access the data at their assigned agency and subject the government’s records to much-needed scrutiny,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in the court motion.

The data includes Social Security numbers, date and place of birth, gender, addresses, marital and parental status, parents’ names, lifetime earnings, bank account information, immigration and work authorization status, health conditions for disability benefits and use of Medicare.

SSA also has data-sharing agreements with the IRS and the Department of Health and Human Services.

The plaintiffs wrote: “The agency is obligated by the Privacy Act and its own regulations, practices, and procedures to keep that information secure — and not to share it beyond the circle of those who truly need it.”

Social Security Administration Commissioner Frank Bisignano, who was sworn in to the post on May 7, said in a statement: that”The Supreme Court’s ruling is a major victory for American taxpayers. The Social Security Administration will continue driving forward modernization efforts, streamlining government systems, and ensuring improved service and outcomes for our beneficiaries.”

On May 23, Roberts temporarily put lower court decisions on hold while the Supreme Court considered what next steps to take.

Musk called Social Security “the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time” during an interview with Joe Rogan on Feb. 28.

The Social Security system, which started in 1935, transfers current workers’ payroll tax payments to people who are already retired.

The payroll tax is a mandatory tax paid by employees and employers. The total current tax rate is 12.4%. There is a separate 2.9% tax for Medicare.

June 5 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday against a lawsuit filed by Mexico that accuses seven American gun manufacturers and one wholesaler of unlawful sale practices, and arming drug dealers.

“The question presented is whether Mexico’s complaint plausibly pleads that conduct. We conclude it does not,” wrote Justice Elena Kagan in the opinion of the court.

Mexico filed suit in March against a group of companies that includes Smith & Wesson, Beretta, Colt and Glock, alleging that the defendants violated the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA, which can allow for some lawsuits against the makers and sellers of firearms.

As stated in the case document, Mexico purports the accused companies “aided and abetted unlawful gun sales that routed firearms to Mexican drug cartels,” and failed to exercise “reasonable care” to keep their guns from being trafficked into Mexico.

Kagan explained that it falls on the plaintiff in this case to properly show that the defendant companies directly committed violations of PLCAA, or otherwise “the predicate violation opens a path to making a gun manufacturer civilly liable for the way a third party has used the weapon it made.”

Kagan did include that “Mexico has a severe gun violence problem, which its government views as coming from north of the border.” She added that the country has only a single gun store, which is slightly inaccurate as Mexico currently has two, but in regard of the one store she mentioned, Kagan claimed that it “issues fewer than 50 gun permits each year.”

She also purported gun traffickers can purchase weaponry in the United States, often illegally, and then take those guns to drug cartels in Mexico. Kagan further noted that as per the Mexican government, “as many as 90% of the guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico originated in the United States.”

Nonetheless, the court ruled “that Mexico has not plausibly alleged aiding and abetting on the manufacturers’ part.” This is why, Kagan explained, that the defendant companies are immune under the PLCAA.

In a concurring statement, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the court’s opinion hasn’t resolved what exactly a future plaintiff will have to show to prove a defendant has committed a PLCAA violation, and that Mexico hadn’t “adequately pleaded its theory of the case.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also included a concurring statement that Congress passed PLCAA in order to decide “which duties to impose on the firearms industry,” and that ignoring PLCAA’s set reasons that do “authorize lawsuits like the one Mexico filed here” would twist PLCAA’s main purpose.

May 30 (UPI) — Legal status in the United States can be lawfully revoked for more than a combined 530,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Friday.

The court only issued an unsigned dissenting opinion acknowledging the federal government can move ahead with its Termination of Parole Process for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans, commonly referred to as CHNV.

In March, President Donald Trump directed the Department of Homeland Security to revoke the legal status of 532,000 migrants under sponsorship programs, primarily from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela.

The migrants were granted legal protected status under former President Joe Biden‘s administration, a program Trump has attempted to wind down amid legal challenges.

A federal judge in Massachusetts last month granted a temporary order blocking Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem from revoking previously-granted parole to the protected migrants.

Earlier this month, Trump asked the Supreme Court to intervene and allow the government to remove protected status.

On Thursday, Boston-based U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani ordered the Trump administration to restart processing applications under the migrant program.

Friday’s Supreme Court ruling returns the issue to the lower courts, giving the Department of Homeland Security the ability to stop processing extension requests from migrants with current legal protections under CHNV while the legal process plays out.

“The Court has plainly botched this assessment today. It requires next to nothing from the Government with respect to irreparable harm. And it undervalues the devastating consequences of allowing the Government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending,” the unsigned dissenting opinion states.

Two of the high court’s liberal judges, Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor, dissented from the majority.

“Even if the Government is likely to win on the merits, in our legal system, success takes time and the stay standards require more than anticipated victory. I would have denied the Government’s application because its harm-related showing is patently insufficient. The balance of the equities also weighs heavily in respondents’ favor. While it is apparent that the Government seeks a stay to enable it to inflict maximum predecision damage, court-ordered stays exist to minimize-not maximize-harm to litigating parties,” the dissenting opinion states.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court ruled in a similar fashion when it allowed the Trump administration to revoke special legal protections for nearly 350,000 Venezuelan nationals living in the United States temporarily.

May 19 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to revoke special legal protections for nearly 350,000 Venezuelan nationals living in the United States temporarily.

Homeland Security had asked the justices to lift a lower court’s injunction that blocked Secretary Kristi Noem’s revocations of the Temporary Protected Status program, or TPS.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said she would deny emergency relief.

The brief order said Northern California district court order is “stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought.”

The TPS program, created in 1990, provides temporary legal status and work authorization to nationals from countries experiencing armed conflict, natural disasters or other extraordinary conditions.

On Feb. 3, Noem terminated the designation, which began in March 2021 and was extended by the Biden administration in October 2023. On April 7, protected Venezuelans were to lose their government-issued work permits and deportation protections.

Another 250,000 immigrants from the Central American country who arrived before 2023 will lose their status in September.

In all, about eight million people have left Venezuela since 2014 due to political persecution, violence, and a lack of food and access to essential services. In 2023, Nicolás Maduro was elected in a race contested as fraudulent by the opposition and outside observers.

The Venezuelan program is the largest TPS designation.

At least 60 days before a TPS designation expires, the agency’s secretary is required to review the conditions in a country designated for TPS to determine whether the conditions supporting the designation continue to be met.

On March 30, District Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco blocked the action and said the decision to terminate the TPS program for the Venezuelans appeared to be “predicated on negative stereotypes.” The appointee of President Barack Obama said the order was “motivated by unconstitutional animus” and unlikely to prevail in a court’s final decision.

On April 15, Massachusetts-based U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, also appointed by Obama, separately temporarily blocked a TPS revocation of about 532,000 people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela in the United States. It was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court

Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in the administration’s emergency appeal of the decision by Chen: “So long as the order is in effect, the secretary must permit hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan nationals to remain in the country, notwithstanding her reasoned determination that doing so is ‘contrary to the national interest.'”

Seven Venezuelan nationals covered by TPS and a group that represents others challenged the change.

Lawyers for TPS beneficiaries told the Supreme Court in a filing: “Staying the district court’s order would cause far more harm than it would stop. It would radically shift the status quo, stripping plaintiffs of their legal status and requiring them to return to a country the State Department still deems too dangerous even to visit.”

The U.S. State Department advises Americans not to travel to Venezuela, the highest travel advisory level.

At the end of Trump’s first term, officials described Venezuela as “the worst humanitarian crisis in the Western Hemisphere.” A different form of temporary relief to some of its migrants was granted.

This litigation is separate from lawsuits involving Trump’s use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members. The Supreme Court ruled Friday again against the administration, saying more notice is needed for people to challenge their removal under the act, which has been used during wars. In April, the justices paused deportations of any Venezuelans held in northern Texas.