Bilingual

Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship
24 days ago
- Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship, rejecting Trump's executive order to deny citizenship to children of unauthorized or temporary residents.
- Court's decision aligns with 14th Amendment interpretation, emphasizing citizenship based on birthplace, not parents' immigration status.
- Ruling also upholds state laws banning transgender athletes from girls' and women's sports teams and strikes down limits on party spending in federal elections.
- Justice Department to prioritize cracking down on 'birth tourism' schemes post-ruling.
- Dissent from Justice Thomas argues citizenship should require deeper ties to the country, not just birth on U.S. soil.
- Reactions include relief from immigrant families, criticism from conservatives, and calls for constitutional amendment to restrict birthright citizenship.
US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections
25 days ago
- The US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that geofence warrants, which collect smartphone location data, require Fourth Amendment privacy protections, as individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in such records.
- Justice Elena Kagan wrote the majority opinion, stating that accessing location data from third-party tech companies constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment, even if data is collected only for a limited time or from public areas.
- The case, Chatrie v US, involved a bank robber tracked via Google's location history, with lawyers arguing the warrant was overly broad and violated constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure.
- The court rejected government arguments that short-term location data access does not qualify as a Fourth Amendment search, noting that voluntary use of smartphone services does not equate to consent for government surveillance.
- Privacy advocates and justices expressed concerns that geofence warrants can reveal sensitive personal associations and be overly broad, potentially monitoring places like protests, clinics, or religious gatherings without proper cause.
- While affirming the search occurred, the court left it to lower courts to determine if it was reasonable, with law enforcement defending the warrants as necessary for investigations when other leads are exhausted.
- The ruling builds on a 2018 precedent requiring warrants for cellphone location tracking, marking a significant step in applying traditional privacy rights to digital-era challenges.
Supreme Court rules privacy protections apply to cellphone location history
22 days ago
- Supreme Court ruled that constitutional privacy protections apply to cellphone location history.
- Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the 6-3 majority that users do not forfeit privacy by using ordinary phone features.
- Justice Samuel Alito dissented, arguing no expectation of privacy for voluntarily shared data.
- The case involved a bank robber identified via geofence warrant tracking cellphones near the crime scene.
- The Court did not decide Fourth Amendment compliance and sent the case back to a lower court.
Show HN: Topics, Not Feeds
21 days ago
- Supreme Court decisions impacting broadcasters require immediate consideration.
- Declaration of Independence drafting process involved committee work and revisions.
- Concerns about AI usability lagging behind rapid evolution halfway through 2026.
- Student loan borrowers face deadlines to select new repayment plans after SAVE plan changes.
- Transgender athlete exclusion in sports is a contentious Supreme Court ruling.
- American Airlines refunds over $900,000 to members due to overcharged taxes.
- Historical reflections on Declaration of Independence's significance and signers' sacrifices.
- AI models and tools require strategic selection and combination for effective use.
- Federal student loan consolidation generally not advised except for default situations.
- Multi-agent LLM systems explore self-organization without predefined coordination.
- Offshore wind farm developments progress with environmental assessments and installations.
A Verdict on (The) Slaughter
20 days ago
- The Supreme Court overturned 90 years of precedent in the Slaughter case, granting the president dictatorial power over regulatory agencies.
- The decision enables corruption by allowing Trump to fire civil servants and direct agencies against their mandates, favoring personal retribution and greed.
- The Court's carve-out for the Federal Reserve is hypocritical, as it's based on market concerns rather than constitutional principles.
- The ruling empowers Trump to reward corporations based on bribes and ego-stroking, undermining antitrust, environmental, and labor protections.
- Profits are soaring due to increased monopoly power and weakened workers' rights, with oligarchs enriching Trump in exchange for favors.
- The Court is seen as partisan, likely to reverse its stance if a Democrat becomes president, reflecting a right-wing view of consolidated Republican power.
Most Supreme Court Rulings Are Secretive Votes with Little Justification
8 days ago
- For the first time in modern history, the Supreme Court's 'shadow docket' decisions (63 orders) outnumbered its traditional merits docket decisions (56 orders) in the term ending October 2025.
- Shadow docket cases are emergency rulings made with limited briefings, no oral arguments, and few signed opinions, often lacking explanations or legal precedent, which has increased under Chief Justice John Roberts.
- The Supreme Court has frequently used the shadow docket to support Trump administration policies, such as allowing immigration detentions and limiting nationwide injunctions, raising concerns about political bias and judicial transparency.
- Emergency applications referred for a full court vote have risen sharply, with the Trump administration filing 32 petitions in 2025 alone, compared to 8 total for the Obama and Bush administrations over 16 years.
- Controversial shadow docket decisions include upholding Texas's abortion law (SB 8) and allowing Louisiana to redraw electoral maps, impacting abortion rights and election districting without detailed justifications.
- Justices like Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson have criticized the shadow docket for being unreasoned and undermining public faith in the judiciary, while Samuel Alito argues the court isn't to blame for the rise in such cases.
- Analysis shows only 17% of shadow docket votes have public records, and the court's increased secrecy has led to legislative efforts, like those by Rep. Jamie Raskin, to improve transparency.
- The shadow docket's growth has disrupted lower courts, contradicted legal precedents, and empowered executive authority, with scholars warning it risks turning the Supreme Court into a 'rubber stamp' for political agendas.

Hasty Briefsbeta

#supreme court

Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

Supreme Court rules privacy protections apply to cellphone location history

Show HN: Topics, Not Feeds

A Verdict on (The) Slaughter

Most Supreme Court Rulings Are Secretive Votes with Little Justification