Tootfinder

scotus_majority: SCOTUS majority opinions
Network of legal citations among majority opinions written by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), from 1754-2002 (2008 version) and 1792-2006 (2007 version). In addition to the citation network, node metadata is included giving some description of each opinion.
This network has 25417 nodes and 216738 edges.
Tags: Informational, Legal, Unweighted, Metadata, Temporal

The justification that Trump used to claim (illegally) federalize the California National Guard and deploy the marines is from 10 U.S. Code § 252:
> Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.
Specifically he's called out the "make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States."
Trump cannot legally hold office because of his participation in an insurrection. Trump should have been impeached and removed on day 1 of his first administration based on the Emoluments clause. Trump colluded with Russia to manipulate the election, so even his swearing in was a failure of the US government to "enforce the laws of the United States." The supreme court justices he appointed explictly undermined and continue to "make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States," as with all of his appointees. The troops he has federalized remain deployed, even after being declared illegal.
When, then, do we call the entire time since January 20th, 2017 to now an insurrection and his government an illegal assembly? Who will order them to "disperse?"
#NoKingsDay

The Supreme court ruled
in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States
that the Constitution did not grant the president an “illimitable power of removal,”
at least over certain types of officials.
This included the head of the Federal Trade Commission, whose firing by President Franklin Roosevelt had sparked the case.
Humphrey’s Executor stood basically untouched for decades, until Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito – both of whom had previously served in the exe…

Supreme Court ignores precedent instead of overruling it in allowing president to fire officials whom Congress tried to make independent
Can the president fire leaders of more than 50 independent agencies overseen by Congress because he wants to? The Supreme Court may say yes, upending decades of constitutional law.

The justification that Trump used to claim (illegally) federalize the California National Guard and deploy the marines is from 10 U.S. Code § 252:
> Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.
Specifically he's called out the "make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States."
Trump cannot legally hold office because of his participation in an insurrection. Trump should have been impeached and removed on day 1 of his first administration based on the Emoluments clause. Trump colluded with Russia to manipulate the election, so even his swearing in was a failure of the US government to "enforce the laws of the United States." The supreme court justices he appointed explictly undermined and continue to "make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States," as with all of his appointees. The troops he has federalized remain deployed, even after being declared illegal.
When, then, do we call the entire time since January 20th, 2017 to now an insurrection and his government an illegal assembly? Who will order them to "disperse?"
#NoKingsDay

scotus_majority: SCOTUS majority opinions
Network of legal citations among majority opinions written by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), from 1754-2002 (2008 version) and 1792-2006 (2007 version). In addition to the citation network, node metadata is included giving some description of each opinion.
This network has 34613 nodes and 202167 edges.
Tags: Informational, Legal, Unweighted, Metadata, Temporal

Trump governs today in the wake of the near-complete dismantling of checks and balances on the executive branch -- at least in the foreign policy and national security realm.
Since the 9/11 attacks, Congress has granted the presidency more and more power over foreign affairs
and declined to take any of it back,
and the Supreme Court has been reluctant to provide any meaningful restraints.
Trump inherited an ever-expanding national security apparatus that operates wi…

Imperial President at Home, Emperor Abroad
American foreign policy in an age of unrestrained executive power.

Google Search Advertising after Dobbs v. Jackson
Yelena Mejova, Ronald E. Robertson, Catherine A. Gimbrone, Sarah McKetta
https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.06640 …

Google Search Advertising after Dobbs v. Jackson
Search engines have become the gateway to information, products, and services, including those concerning healthcare. Access to reproductive health has been especially complicated in the wake of the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, splintering abortion regulations among the states. In this study, we performed an audit of the advertisements shown to Google Search users seeking information about abortion across the United States during the year following t…

Yesterday's incredibly dunce-like decisions from SCOTUS reminded me once again why I am refusing to become a member of the US Supreme Court bar.
"I will not be joining the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) Bar"
https://www.cavebear.com/cavebear-blog/no-…

Today's Trump v. CASA decision screams for an expansion of SCOTUS.
Why?
Because this opinion means more cases will come to SCOTUS to be resolved to achieve national consistency.
Yet SCOTUS is overworked.
This was mentioned in the SistersInLaw podcast from last week, "Pretzel Logic" where it was said:
"I mean, this is maybe grounds for we need a bigger court. We need two Supreme Courts so that they can handle enough cases."
I ha…

scotus_majority: SCOTUS majority opinions
Network of legal citations among majority opinions written by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), from 1754-2002 (2008 version) and 1792-2006 (2007 version). In addition to the citation network, node metadata is included giving some description of each opinion.
This network has 25417 nodes and 216738 edges.
Tags: Informational, Legal, Unweighted, Metadata, Temporal

scotus_majority: SCOTUS majority opinions
Network of legal citations among majority opinions written by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), from 1754-2002 (2008 version) and 1792-2006 (2007 version). In addition to the citation network, node metadata is included giving some description of each opinion.
This network has 34613 nodes and 202167 edges.
Tags: Informational, Legal, Unweighted, Metadata, Temporal