We are still waiting on these to drop today.
Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (argued Jan. 15): This case stems from a challenge by a trade group for the adult entertainment industry to a 2023 Texas law that requires pornography sites to verify the age of their users before providing access. The law applies to any website whose content is one-third or more “harmful to minors.” The question that the justices agreed to decide was whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit properly applied a less stringent constitutional test, known as rational basis review, when reviewing the law, or whether it should have instead applied a more stringent standard, known as strict scrutiny.
Louisiana v. Callais (argued March 24): This is a dispute over a congressional map that the Louisiana Legislature adopted last year. After a federal court ruled, in a separate lawsuit, that a 2022 map containing one majority-Black district likely violated the Voting Rights Act, the Legislature enacted a new map, which contained two majority-Black districts. A group of voters describing themselves as “non-African American” challenged the 2024 map, contending that it was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander – that is, that it sorted voters based primarily on their race. Defending the new map, the state contended that race was not the motivating factor behind the new map. Instead, it argued, it drew the map as it did to protect several high-profile Republican incumbents, such as Speaker of the House Mike Johnson and Rep. Julia Letlow, who sits on the powerful House Appropriations Committee.
Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research (argued March 27): This case is a challenge to the federal “E-rate program,” which subsidizes telephone and high-speed internet services in schools, libraries, rural areas, and low-income communities in urban areas. Money for the subsidies comes from the Universal Service Fund, created by Congress and funded through contributions from telecommunications carriers; a private nonprofit created by the FCC, known as the Universal Service Administrative Company, administers the fund. A consumer protection group that has (among other things) recently devoted itself to fighting “woke” corporations contends that the scheme violates the nondelegation doctrine – the idea that Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers to other entities.
Kennedy v. Braidwood Management (argued April 21): This case is a challenge to the constitutionality of the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, an independent panel of experts with the power under the Affordable Care Act to determine which preventive services insurers must cover. The plaintiffs in the case, who have religious objections to the requirement that insurers provide coverage for a drug that prevents HIV, contend that the Constitution requires members of the task force to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
The last one is particularly bad. If they agree, insurance companies may no longer have to cover preventative medical services.
By the way, the migrants in custody have started dying. Reports that they have no access to clean water, very little food and no medical care are increasing. A woman here in Denver ended up with a stillbirth because they refused her medical care access.
www.wired.com/story/ice-detention-center-911-emergencies/
They are essentially putting migrants in camps and leaving them there without much care.
