Subscribe now

Otherwise, please consider sharing this post with a friend:

Share

Alright, let’s get into it!

News Desk - This Week’s Top Ten Headlines

1. Supreme Court To Release Opinions Next Week

   The Court announced on Friday that it will release opinions on February 24th and 25th. The announcement comes after months of speculation over the Court’s unreleased decision in the tariffs cases, which were argued three months ago last week. During a CBS interview Tuesday, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (fresh off a controversial appearance at the 2026 Grammys) reassured us that “it takes time to write.” At this point, the odds are decidedly in the administration’s favor, though nothing can be guaranteed aside from the high probability that at least five justices write opinions in the case. For more on tariffs, see my November recap of the oral argument here.

2. SCOTUS Schedules Ten Cases, Including Immigration Case, for Argument
   With less than half of its October 2025 term remaining, the Court released its oral argument schedule for April. Among the ten cases listed, Bondi v. Lau deserves a watch. The case concerns when the government, to remove a lawful permanent resident (green card holder) who committed a deportable offense and was paroled into the U.S. upon reentry, must prove by “clear and convincing evidence” that the alien was an “applicant for admission” under federal law rather than an admitted permanent resident. The case stems from Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese national who was charged with trademark counterfeiting in 2012. Lau briefly left the U.S. while charges were pending, and upon return was paroled into the country (instead of admitted) based on the pending charge. After his 2013 guilty plea, DHS initiated removal proceedings. The Second Circuit ruled in Lau’s favor in last year, holding that immigration officers lacked authority to parole him without clear and convincing evidence of the offense at reentry, prompting the Trump administration’s successful cert petition to the Supreme Court. A ruling for the government would expand DHS’s ability to remove green card holders with pending or later-proven criminal charges by treating them as inadmissible upon reentry.

3. New York Republicans Challenge Redistricted Map
   In the latest news surrounding state redistricting, New York State Board of Elections officials joined Congresswoman Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY-11) and NY voters in filing an emergency application to the Supreme Court over a ruling by the State Supreme Court. The state court declared New York’s 2024 congressional map’s redrawing of the 11th Congressional District (CD-11), represented by Malliotakis, unconstitutional under the state constitution for diluting the votes of Black and Latino voters, based on evidence of racially polarized voting. The court rejected plaintiffs’ reliance on the New York Voting Rights Act, but adopted a novel three-pronged “crossover district” test requiring districts where minority voters can select their primary candidates of choice, see those candidates (usually) win the general election, and become “decisive” in selections. Using this court-created test, the court found the current map failed under a totality-of-circumstances analysis and enjoined state officials from conducting “any” election under the 2024 map, and ordered the state Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) to reconvene and propose a new map by February 6, 2026. The application requested a ruling by February 23, and Justice Sotomayor quickly ordered a response to be filed by February 19. Petitioners face an uphill battle before a Court that has allowed both Texas and California to survive racial redistricting challenges.

4. DOJ Files Evidence of a Search Warrant for 2020 Fulton County Ballots
   According to a recent court filing, on January 28, FBI Special Agent Hugh Raymond Evans obtained a federal search warrant authorizing a search of the Fulton County Election Hub in Fairburn, Georgia, for evidence of violations of federal law, tabulator tapes, scanned ballot images, and voter rolls from Fulton County. The affidavit cites allegations of impropriety in Fulton County as prompting an FBI criminal probe into potential legal violations, initiated from a referral by Kurt Olsen, the Trump administration’s Director of Election Security and Integrity. The warrant establishes probable cause that unknown persons committed these federal offenses, allowing review of seized electronic data by FBI, DOJ attorneys, and additional intelligence experts. The warrant was signed by U.S. Magistrate Judge Catherine M. Salinas and remains under seal.

5. Court Blocks Trump Administration’s Attempt to Censure Senator Kelly
   Senator Mark Kelly’s motion for a preliminary injunction in his lawsuit against Secretary Pete Hegseth was granted on Thursday. The injunction halts the Pentagon’s efforts to censure Kelly for his criticism of the Trump administration’s military operations in Venezuela and federal use of the National Guard. Kelly most infamously contributed to a November 2025 video with fellow Democratic members of Congress urging active military to refuse illegal orders. Hegseth then opened a military review into Kelly, culminating in a January 5 Secretarial Letter of Censure against the Senator for allegedly undermining the chain of command, counseling disobedience, and conduct unbecoming an officer; this triggered proceedings to potentially reduce Kelly’s retirement rank and pay, plus criminally prosecute him should he continue speaking out. The court ruled that Kelly’s First Amendment retaliation claim is justiciable, that no precedent extends military speech restrictions to retired service members, and that full civilian-level protections apply here. The injunction blocks enforcement of the censure, the retirement grade proceeding, and further retaliation based on Kelly’s speech pending full resolution of the case.

6. Fifth Circuit Upholds Ballot Harvesting Ban
   In La Union del Pueblo Entero v. Abbott, the Fifth Circuit reversed a district court’s ruling enjoining enforcement of a key provision of Texas’s Election Integrity Protection Act. The challenged provision criminalizes “vote harvesting services” as a state felony when a person knowingly provides or offers specified assistance for delivering votes for a specific candidate or measure, particularly in the context of in-person interactions involving mail ballots or in the physical presence of an official ballot. Plaintiffs argue the ban is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment and constituted an impermissible content-based restriction on protected political speech under the First Amendment. The district court had agreed in a ruling issued weeks before the 2024 election. The Fifth Circuit panel unanimously reversed on Thursday, holding that the district court erred in granting facial relief based on hypothetical scenarios rather than actual enforcement or a record showing substantial overbreadth or vagueness in all applications. The court emphasized deference to election integrity laws in pre-enforcement challenges, noted mail ballots’ higher fraud risks, and found the ban consistent with the First Amendment. The ruling reinstates full enforcement of the ban, a win for Texas officials the RNC, who participated in the litigation.

7. Don Lemon Pleads Not Guilty in Federal Case

   Charged under the same federal law used to prosecute abortion protestors, Don Lemon pled not guilty on Friday. Lemon’s attorneys also filed a motion challenging the validity of his indictment after the DOJ unsuccessfully tried to secure arrest warrants for Lemon from a judge three times. The charges follow Lemon’s unusual method of church attendance last month, during which he followed a group of protestors into an active church service and argued with the pastor and other attendees. Lemon faces charges under the FACE Act, which was used by the Biden administration to selectively prosecute protestors outside of abortion clinics while allowing worse violations of the law to occur at churches and crisis pregnancy centers. After taking office last year, President Trump pardoned 23 of the protestors prosecuted under the prior administration. Lemon is the first person the administration has prosecuted under the FACE Act.

8. Court Rules Against ICE as Trump Withdraws Enforcement From Minnesota

   A district court in Minnesota granted a TRO in a case brought against DHS and ICE. The ruling addresses allegations that, during a large-scale immigration enforcement operation, ICE systematically denied noncitizen detainees meaningful access to counsel, in violation of their Fifth Amendment due process rights. The court found that plaintiffs presented detailed evidence of barriers including rapid out-of-state transfers without notice, limited or non-private phone access, refusal of in-person attorney visits, inaccurate or delayed updates to the detainee locator system, and pressure to sign removal forms without legal consultation. The order, effective for two weeks (until February 26), requires ICE to provide detainees with immediate written notice of their rights to legal resources in multiple languages, ensure free confidential phone access to counsel, allow in-person legal visitation, refrain from transferring detainees out of Minnesota for the first 72 hours of detention, and avoid retaliation against those involved in the litigation. A status conference is scheduled for February 24, 2026, to review compliance and next steps toward a potential preliminary injunction. The order comes as Border Czar Tom Homan announced a “conclus[ion]” to ICE operations in Minnesota.

9. Trump Administration Sues Harvard Over Admissions Data
   On Friday, the DOJ filed a lawsuit against Harvard University seeking to compel the release of detailed admissions records. The complaint alleges that Harvard has violated Title VI related federal regulations by failing to fully cooperate with a compliance review from last year, which aims to determine whether the university continues to discriminate based on race in its admissions processes following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023), which banned such discrimination. The DOJ claims Harvard has “slow-walked” its response and withheld critical applicant-level data despite repeated requests, extensions, and warnings of enforcement action. Harvard provided only partial, mostly public or aggregated documents in May 2025 productions and has not supplied the individualized data needed to assess compliance. The suit, tied to Harvard’s receipt of federal funding, also asserts breach of contract.

10. Sunshine Darkens Over ICE Operations
    During a hearing on Friday, Biden-appointed Judge Sunshine Sykes sharply rebuked the Trump administration for defying her December 2025 declaratory judgment that noncitizens detained in the U.S. interior are entitled to bond hearings. Despite Sykes’s declaration, immigration judges continue denying hearings under Chief Judge Teresa Riley’s January directive that the ruling is not binding because it lacks injunctive force. The DOJ argued the judgment creates only a “tension” and cannot broadly restrain executive operations per Supreme Court precedent, while plaintiffs called the non-compliance an unlawful claim to be “above the law.” Sykes expressed frustration over separation-of-powers violations and is considering remedial notices to class members confirming bond rights.

    

Picks of the Week - Articles Worth Your Time

President’s Day Lessons for America’s 250th Birthday
By Carson Halloway for the American Mind
Reviews some basic lessons America needs to learn for this overlooked holiday.

The Insignificance of Judicial Opinions
By Jesse Driver for the California Law Review
A more academic piece on the weakness of court opinions.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s Legacy
By AEI (Day One and Two)
Friday marked 10 years since Justice Antonin Scalia died, and in his memory, the American Enterprise Institute held a two day conference on his legacy.

Quote of the Week

“I don’t worry about my legacy. Just do your job right, and who cares?”

Justice Antonin Scalia, in a 2005 speech

This Week’s Note: Parental Rights and Secret School Transition Policies

In place of this week’s article, I have an exclusive treat for the subscribers of this newsletter. Last year, I joined the new E Pluribus Unum law journal, an online undergraduate law journal dedicated to publishing conservative pieces on constitutional law. My first piece will arrive with the forthcoming Spring 2026 print edition, and will be available on the journal’s website and reproduced in this newsletter when the time comes. Until then, please enjoy a preview of the first two sections!

Read more

Subscribe now

Otherwise, please consider sharing this post with a friend:

Share

Alright, let’s get into it!

News Desk - This Week’s Top Ten Headlines

1. Supreme Court Hears Argument in Wolford v. Lopez & Trump v. Cook

   The Court heard oral argument in Wolford v. Lopez on Tuesday over the case’s challenge to Hawaii’s gun law prohibiting concealed carry permit holders from bringing handguns onto private property open to the public (e.g., stores, restaurants, bars) without the explicit permission of the property owner. The state argues their local traditions surpass the weight of the Second Amendment, and argued the Black Codes, which restricted the gun rights of minorities in the Jim Crow era, justified their attempt at gun control as a “tradition” under the Constitution. To absolutely no one’s surprise, the justices were not in a hurry to accept an argument based on race discrimination in 2026, with Justice Alito asking why Hawaii was “relegating the Second Amendment to second-class status.” The following day, conservative superstar Paul Clement faced off against Solicitor General John Sauer in Trump v. Cook over the President’s power to fire disgraced Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. With Sauer frequently interrupting the justices while Clement attacked the case from all angles, the administration came out of the argument with the tide turned against them. More on the Cook case in today’s article below, which you can read if subscribe.

   Subscribe now

2. Supreme Court Releases Three More Opinions Before Tariffs Decision
   The Court released three unanimous opinions in lower-profile cases on Tuesday while continuing to delay the much-anticipated ruling on President Trump’s IEEPA tariffs. In Berk v. Choy, the Court addressed a question over the Rules of Civil Procedure that remains interesting only to law professors and their students, and in Coney Island v. Burton, the Court fleshed out the time limits of a federal bankruptcy statute. Finally, the Court upheld the applicability of the Ex Post Facto clause to a criminal statute frequently seen as civil law, with Justice Thomas filing a concurring opinion suggesting the 228-year-old decision in Calder v. Bull be reevaluated. Outside of this suggestion, the Court’s opinions have caused little stir, and the tariffs decision’s outcome becomes more ambiguous by the day.

3. Trump Administration Urges Supreme Court to Rule on California Maps
   The administration, through Solicitor General Sauer, urged the Court on Friday to declare California’s newly redistricted map unconstitutional as a racial gerrymander. Created to add up to five Democratic-leaning House seats, the map was challenged by state Republicans ahead of the 2026 midterms. The administration argues that statements from the map’s consultant explicitly discuss race-based line-drawing in certain districts, which Sauer concludes is “tainted” despite its otherwise purely partisan justification. Justice Kagan ordered California to respond by January 29, as candidate filing opens February 9. This all follows the Court’s decision last month allowing Texas’s map to proceed, in which Justice Alito described the impetus for California’s map “partisan advantage pure and simple.”1 More on last month’s decision here:

4. Chase Bank Sued for Debanking the President of the United States
   President Trump and his affiliated businesses filed a lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase Bank and its CEO on Friday, alleging that the bank improperly closed several accounts belonging to the President. The complaint asserts this caused significant financial losses, reputational harm, and the need to seek less favorable banking arrangements elsewhere. According to Trump, acting in his personal capacity in the case, JPMorgan placed him on a blacklist accessible to other financial institutions, implying possible trade libel, violations of Florida state law, and a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. JPMorgan responded by stating the suit lacks merit and confirming plans to defend itself in court. Upon review, this author can find no record of banks cutting off the President of the United States from their services.

5. Court Immediately Restrains Administration in ICE Shooting Case
   A Minnesota district judge granted an emergency TRO in a lawsuit brought against the Trump administration the day Alex Pretti was shot and killed by ICE agents. The order hastily enjoins the defendants, their agents, and anyone acting in concert with them from destroying, altering, or otherwise tampering with any evidence related to the fatal shooting in Minneapolis. Specifically covering evidence removed from the scene or taken into exclusive federal custody, the order halts prohibits any interference with evidence ahead of the suit’s further proceedings. The court scheduled a hearing for today to consider any objections from the defendants and to determine whether the temporary order should be extended, ultimately taking no further action as of this writing.

6. Supreme Court Adds Case On Digital Privacy
   Earlier today, the Court granted review in Salazar v. Paramount Global to resolve a circuit split over the scope of the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988, known as the “Bork bill” for its passage after the failed confirmation of Judge Robert Bork. The case originates from a claim that Paramount violated the Act by sharing a user’s Facebook ID and video-viewing history with Facebook after the person watched content on a sports site while logged into the social platform. Lower courts dismissed the suit as the plaintiff was not, in their view, a “consumer” of “audiovisual goods or services” under the Act because he did not have a paid or formal membership. This marks the most recent addition to the Court’s slowly expanding docket.

7. DOJ Subpoenas Disgraced Minnesota Governor Tim Walz
   Following the Governor’s repeated attempts to resist ICE operations in his state, the DOJ issued subpoenas to former VP-hopeful and renowned football star Tim Walz. The agency also subpoenaed Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her, Attorney General Keith Ellison, and Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty, seeking information related to the interference with federal immigration enforcement operations. The subpoenas, reported by multiple outlets including the New York Times, do not specify any criminal statute but arise in the wake of heightened tensions following the continued anti-ICE protests and National Guard activation. Walz and Frey have vocally opposed the Trump administration’s aggressive ICE deployments in Minnesota, with Frey publicly demanding that ICE “get the f*** out” of his city. Walz called the move “political theater,” but evidently has no similar feelings towards his actions in calling up the National Guard.

8. California Joins World Health Organization in Unprecedented Move
   In a remarkable assertion of state sovereignty, California announced that it has become the first and only state to join the World Health Organization’s Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN), a coordinated international system that unites governments and public health systems address health threats. Governor Newsom made the announcement following a meeting with the WHO Director-General at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Newsom, who may need reminded that he governs a state, not a country, framed the move as resistance to the Trump administration’s formal withdrawal of the United States from WHO. Newsom condemned the decision as “reckless,” though suddenly identifying his state as a new country did not meet his threshold for recklessness. This unprecedented move positions California, with its vast population and economy, as a quasi-independent actor in global disease surveillance, but raises grave legal questions that border upon nullification.

9. Maine Governor Resists ICE Operations in State
   Joining her fellow blue state Governors in defying federal authority, Maine Governor Janet Mills issued a public statement last week responding to the launch of new ICE operations in the state. Mills insisted that federal agents must present valid warrants for any actions and condemned any separations of working mothers from young children. DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin sharply criticized Mills and other “sanctuary politicians” in Maine for prioritizing criminal noncitizens over law-abiding American citizens, noting that arrests under the operation have already included individuals charged with aggravated assault, false imprisonment, and endangering the welfare of a child. While Minneapolis remains the hub of ICE news, it should only take a few weeks for some lawsuit to come out of Maine.

10. DHS Promises to Deport Mahmoud Khalil Again
    On Thursday, Assistant Secretary McLaughlin announced that activist Mahmoud Khalil will be rearrested and deported to Algeria, stating, “It looks like he’ll go to Algeria. That’s what the thought is right now.” This latest move follows a recent ruling by the Third Circuit that reversed an releasing Khalil from immigration detention, allowing the way for the Trump administration to resume enforcement of his removal order after he spent 104 days in ICE custody earlier last year. His lawsuit against the administration continues, but could become much more complicated should DHS’s plans go forward.

Picks of the Week - Articles Worth Your Time

The Dubious History Supporting Hawaii’s Gun Laws
By Jesse Leon for the Liberty Justice Center
Liberals using the Black Codes to justify their gun laws shows a certain level of priority.

Inciting Terrorism is Not Free Speech
By Tal Fortgang for City Journal
On a recent Fourth Circuit ruling.

Life Without Buckley v. Valeo
By John Samples for the Institute for Free Speech
Examines the campaign finance case on its 50th anniversary.

Quote of the Week

“I feel like some of the [Supreme] court’s critics don’t know how to take yes for an answer.”

Prof. Will Baude, discussing the Court’s disposition in Trump v. Cook

Quick Notes

Now the part of the newsletter full of thoughts and opinions. This week, a quick recap of Trump v. Cook.

Read more

Read more

Subscribe now

Also, consider sharing the blog with a friend.

Share Lex Liberas

Alright, let’s get to it.

Read more

Read more

Subscribe now

Also, consider sharing the blog with a friend.

Share Lex Liberas

Alright, let’s get to it.

Read more

Read more

Read more

Subscribe now

Today is election day for this blog, as I will summarize a trio of election law cases at the Supreme Court this term. I will then take next Friday off, and wish you all a very Merry Christmas!

Before reading though, please share this blog with a friend!

Share Lex Liberas

Alright, let’s get into it!

First, we must begin at the beginning, or rather, at what has already been decided. Earlier this month, the Court stayed and injunction on the interim orders docket allowing Texas to use its new redistricting maps as the status quo going into the 2026 midterms. This case simultaneously has the most action from the Court, but perhaps the least impact on election law long-term, so discussion of it will grace your screen for only a moment.

Read more

Read more

Up until this week, I was preparing an in-depth piece on all the elections cases before the Court this term, and was planning to include this week’s argument in NRSC v. FEC in the discussion. However, finals and a nasty cold have sidelined me, so I will delay that article until it is fully ready, and share this piece I had published in the New Guard Press last month. With the recent grant in the birthright citizenship case, this makes for an ideal rerun in a less-than ideal situation.

If you enjoy the article, please check out New Guard. They’re doing wonderful work.

Before reading though, please share this blog with a friend!

Share Lex Liberas

Alright, let’s get into it!

Read more

Read more

Due to the holiday, this will be the first article since before Thanksgiving, but it will cover enough ground to punch above its weight. Before reading though, please share this blog with a friend!

Share Lex Liberas

Alright, let’s get into it!

On Monday, December 8, the Supreme Court will hear one of the most consequential constitutional cases in living memory. In Trump v. Slaughter, Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic appointee to the FTC who was fired by President Trump earlier this year, will fight to remain in office. At the core of the case, the real defendant is a 90-year-old precedent, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, and by extension, the entire architecture of the modern independent administrative state.

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

Share

Welcome back to Lex Liberas, my humble blog on the Constitution, the law, and therefore constitutional law. On Sundays, I send out a free newsletter, and on Fridays such as these, I add some commentary to significant constitutional questions.

Today, I will interrupt my usual “constitutional solutions” programming to brain-dump my takeaways from listening to the nearly three-hour oral argument in the tariffs cases. A decision will likely come down in a few weeks, so understanding the core issues will be critical. I will resume the expected programming next week with an in-depth look at Article V, a subject I cannot wait to discuss and am sorry to delay.

Alright, let’s dive in.

Before diving into the details of the argument, a little table setting is in order. The tariffs cases are two consolidated cases (Learning Resources v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections) that challenge President Trump’s use of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Notably, they do not challenge any other statute, as President Trump has not yet relied on one of the many other tariff-granting statutes he has at his disposal. There are three main questions at play: 1) Does IEEPA grant the president the power to tariff, 2) If so, is that grant constitutional, and 3) If so, did President Trump meet the statutory qualifications for these specific tariffs? The last question received almost no attention at the Court, and therefore does not merit much here. The first two are extremely important, and will take up most of this post.

Read more