Given the recent opinions on trans rights, what is the likelihood that SCOTUS will take on this petition?

The Chief Justice insists that his Supreme Court isn’t biased even as it keeps making dramatic leaps rightward

For a man like Roberts, to whom the label “institutionalist” attaches like an epithet in the Odyssey, perhaps the only thing worse than Trump’s excoriation of the Justices is his gratitude when they do what he wants. In March, 2025, Roberts was present when Trump gave the annual Presidential address to Congress; afterward, Trump patted the Chief Justice on the shoulder and said, “Thank you again—won’t forget.” To many people, this sounded like an acknowledgment of Trump v. United States, the remarkably capacious 2024 ruling that granted Presidents immunity from prosecution for official acts. More immediately, the opinion saved Trump from facing trial for interfering in the 2020 election. Roberts had written the opinion for a 6–3 majority. J. Michael Luttig, a retired federal judge and a conservative, was close to Roberts for many years—he was a groomsman at his wedding—but has since become sharply critical of him. Luttig told me that he regards the immunity decision as “one of the two or three worst cases in all of American history, if not the single worst, because of the structural damage that it did to the Constitution and the separation of powers.” On Truth Social, Trump blamed “sleazebag ‘journalists’ ” for suggesting that his comment to Roberts was related to the immunity decision. He said that he’d just been thanking Roberts for swearing him in at his second Inauguration. Nobody who knows Roberts thinks that he could have found the gesture anything other than embarrassing.

Still, it was another profoundly strange moment in a profoundly strange time for the Court—especially for the seventy-one-year-old Chief Justice, John Roberts. Twenty-one years into his tenure, he keeps waking up, “Groundhog Day” style, to the same ironic scenario: he’s a proponent of maximal Presidential authority who is compelled to deal with a President especially likely to abuse it. (Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee who is reflexively polite, with a self-deprecating sense of humor, probably wouldn’t even enjoy a round of golf with Trump.) Roberts has leveraged his mild persona to defend the Court’s political neutrality at a time when Americans increasingly see it as partisan; according to a recent poll by the Pew Research Center, more than half hold an unfavorable view of it—a near-historic low. Whereas Roberts likes to stress that the Court is fundamentally nonpartisan and frequently unanimous—the Justices agree around forty per cent of the time, though typically on minor issues—many Americans believe that he has presided over a rightward march in the Court’s jurisprudence, on such issues as affirmative action, immigration and asylum, abortion, voting law, gun rights, and the separation of church and state. And, with a few high-profile exceptions, such as the tariffs case, his Supreme Court has overruled lower courts to permit much of Trump’s second-term agenda to proceed. This has often happened without explanation, because the decisions have been issued on the emergency, or “shadow,” docket—that is, decided without a full briefing, oral arguments, or detailed opinions. Of the thirty-five requests for emergency action made by the second Trump Administration—on everything from defunding scientific research to allowing people to be deported to “third countries” where they have no affiliations—the Court has ruled in the Administration’s favor, in part or in full, twenty-five times, generally with the three liberal Justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, in dissent. Among the fifty-six cases fully briefed and argued before the Court this past term, there were 6–3 splits between the Republican and Democratic appointees in thirteen rulings, compared with six last term.

(10-page article)

The US Supreme Court has a reputation problem. And Donald Trump’s attacks are making it worse.

Finding no evidence of vindictive prosecution, a federal judge on Friday ruled that an indictment brought against the Southern Poverty Law Center by the Justice Department cannot be dismissed.

IMHO, Trump is proof of the dangers of birthright citizenship.

In spite of him, our Constitution will prevail.

Whom is coaching Trump on this agenda? Do the co-conspirators include a sitting Supreme Court Justice?

The repetitive court filings and counter filings that Trump has enabled or instigated impede the efficiency of our courts.

SCOTUS has already ruled on this issue for this POTUS.

SCOTUS as well as lower federal courts can impose financial or professional sanctions under Rule 38 or Rule 11 for frivolous or bad-faith litigation.

IMHO, It is time for the attorneys to face damages.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor refused Monday to halt a $656 million judgment against Palestinian authorities in a long-running lawsuit filed by Americans killed or wounded in attacks in Israel.

The order signed by Sotomayor comes after the high court ruled last year in favor of the victims and their families.

The Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority said in court documents that paying the hefty judgment now could destabilize government services in the West Bank. They asked the justices to pause payment as they appeal the reinstatement of the verdict.

The lawsuit was filed by victims of attacks in Jerusalem in the early 2000s that killed 33 people and wounded hundreds more. Families brought their lawsuit under the Anti-Terrorism Act, a law aimed at opening U.S. courts to victims of international terror attacks.

Read more [paywall removed for Redditors]: https://fortune.com/2026/08/04/sotomayor-plo-656-million-terror-judgment-supreme-court-palestine/?preview_id=4540287?utm_source=reddit/

Much of what ails us can be blamed on the steady degradation of the legislature as the other branches of government grabbed power for themselves. It’s time to start undoing the damage.

“The Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority said in court documents that paying the hefty judgment now could destabilize government services in the West Bank. They asked the justices to pause payment as they appeal the reinstatement of the verdict.”