Uncensored Free Speech Platform

OPINION: Harold R. Berk, Petitioner v. Wilson C. Choy
Law enforcement shouldn't be political.

Caption Harold R. Berk, Petitioner v. Wilson C. Choy Summary Delaware law requiring a plaintiff suing for medical malpractice to provide an affidavit from a medical professional attesting to the suit’s merit, Del. Code, Tit. 18, §6853(a)(1), conflicts with a valid Federal Rule of Civil Procedure and does not apply in federal court. Author Justice Amy Coney Barrett Opinion Certiorari Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 18, 2024) Case Link 24-440

I am fucking done with MAGA. I wanted to post on facebook but no MAGA will read it (since most can’t read).
This isn't complicated—it's willpower.

Tomorrow marks one year of Trump being back in office. So let’s do what his supporters never want to do: actually look at the record.
I’ll start with the positives so nobody cries about bias. The border is more secure. The stock market is doing well. That’s it. That’s the list.
Now the clown show.
In one year we’ve renamed the Gulf of Mexico because feelings, launched Trump and Melania meme coins like a pump-and-dump presidency, and pardoned everyone from January 6 — including people who violently assaulted police officers. “Back the blue,” unless the blue stands in Trump’s way.
Trump slapped tariffs on almost every country on Earth. Giant corporations like Apple and Google simply paid their way around them. Small and mid-size businesses couldn’t, so they slowed hiring, shut down, or folded. The result? The worst job growth year since 2020. Trump managed to recreate pandemic-level economic damage without an actual pandemic. That’s almost impressive.
Everything is more expensive — intentionally. Tariffs raise prices. Everyone knew it. Everyone said it. He did it anyway after promising to lower costs. You were lied to.
We’re now blowing up boats in the Caribbean under the banner of “drug enforcement,” often without knowing who’s on them or what they’re carrying — and in some cases killing survivors. That’s not strength. That’s reckless brutality.
And here’s the part you truly cannot make up: while doing this, Trump pardoned the former president of Honduras, a man convicted in U.S. court of massive cocaine trafficking into the United States — hundreds of tons — and sentenced to decades in prison. So let’s be clear: poor people on boats get missiles, but an actual convicted drug kingpin gets a pardon. That’s not a war on drugs. That’s a protection racket.
We took out Maduro — fine, no tears shed — then left his cabinet and VP in power while lining up to grab Venezuelan oil. Regime-change theater. Same corruption, same system, different branding. Funny how it’s always about oil.
Meanwhile, Trump drags his feet on releasing the Epstein files — a literal campaign promise — insults his own supporters for asking, and stalls at every turn. I’m not saying he’s guilty. I am saying innocent people don’t act like that.
Then there’s Greenland. A NATO ally. A place where we already have a military base. Trump openly threatens military force “for national security” — the exact excuse we say would justify war if China or Russia used it. If you don’t see the hypocrisy, you’re not confused — you’re committed.
We elected Trump to lower prices. He raised them.
We elected him to expose corruption. He sells pardons to convicted fraudsters.
We elected him to fight the deep state. His own people now admit the conspiracies were bullshit.
If you supported Trump and now feel embarrassed, congratulations — that means you still have a functioning conscience. People make mistakes.
The best time to reject Trump was 2016.
The second-best time is right now.
And if you can read all of this and still proudly call yourself MAGA — you’re not defending America. You’re defending a cult.

Legislative Standing and/After Bost
Trust is earned, not demanded.

Another Steve Vladeck essay, about Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections and how it fits (or doesn't) with the court's jurisprudence on standing.
I tend to think that standing doctrine is far too restrictive (How much litigation there should be is a policy question, not really the proper domain of the courts. But it has seemed to me that courts prefer to limit the volume of litigation by limiting standing in marginal cases). So I was happy with the outcome in Bost, but had the same frustration that the court expands standing in this case while restricting it in other areas.

Does anyone else think that this whole Greenland issue is really just an attempt to box in Canada?
This affects the entire country.

I haven't seen anyone else discuss this in the news. Everyone seems so flabbergasted that Trump wants to take Greenland for strategic purposes, that I think they all forgot that when he first got back into office he said he wanted to make Canada the 51rst state.
IMO there's not really any major advantage in having Greenland under US control if we can just station our troops there whenever needed. It occurs to me that if he's trying to be the "Greatest President Ever" he's probably looking at expanding American territory.
So, the same way he wanted to rename the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America, and take the Panama Canal back, it's another form of expansion. I would imagine that in his mind the United States should be considered all of North America. If he successfully takes over Greenland, then Canada would be bordered on all sides (except North) by the USA. Seems like a positioning set up to me.

My experience attending oral argument in the public line (non lottery)
Equal justice apparently isn't equal anymore.

I attended oral arguments for Wolford v. Lopez on Tuesday, January 20, 2026 by waiting in the public line, and wanted to write up my experience as a data point for others. I had done a lot research beforehand as to what to expect, some of which was still applicable and some of which turned out to be outdated.
This was my second trip to Washington, DC. The first time was several months ago; I had also applied for the lottery then on a relatively obscure and technical case, and was not drawn. I have always wanted to attend oral arguments, especially for a Second Amendment case, which is a personal interest of mine. I therefore made my flight and hotel arrangements around the Wolford case, entered the lottery again, and planned to attend whether or not I was drawn. Three weeks before the trip, I was notified that I was once again not selected in the lottery, and made plans to stand in the public line.
Planning
The weather forecast was fortunately clear, but with a high of 28 and low of 15 degrees, I knew it was going to be a cold night. I checked luggage on my flight from the West Coast, bringing a zero degree rated down sleeping bag and inflatable sleeping pad with an R-value of 5 that I usually use for snow camping. I also brought a set of merino wool thermals to sleep in, and a garment bag with my suit to throw on over the thermals in the morning. I also packed plenty of hand warmers, warm mittens, wool socks, a pair of dress socks, a comb, a powerbank, and a travel pillow. I threw all of this into a collapsible duffel bag.
Arriving
My flight landed around 10:30pm. By the time I made my way to the hotel, checked in, and organized my gear, I did not arrive in line until 1:00am. The public line starts at the northeast corner of East Capitol Street and First Street, and stretches to the east along the Capitol Street sidewalk. Members of the SCOTUS bar have their own line on the other side of the building. I had read that they only guarantee public admission for the first 15 people, and was elated to count out that I was #12. The first four people were asleep in bags, there were a couple of empty chairs, a few more people sitting in folding chairs under blankets (shivering and looking absolutely miserable), and a few more empty chairs next to me. As far as I could tell, each of the chairs had an owner in a nearby parked car waiting out of the cold, but I can’t say for sure that no one was cheating the system. I did not see those folks emerge until between 6 and 7am. There was one gentleman just hanging around, who was more or less the self-appointed line monitor, and seemed to be a boss at one of the line standing companies.
Waiting
I don’t sleep well on planes, and didn’t get much sleep here. But I was perfectly warm with my bag and pad. The next person did not arrive until 3:30am, and the few people trickled in around 5am. Between 5 and 6, a group of 15 or so high school students arrived. Contrary to some reports that people would be led in at 7-7:30, the line company manager advised me that the police would not come and hand out passes until about 9:30am, which turned out to be correct. I got out of my sleeping bag a little after 5am, threw …

r/SupremeCourt Weekly "In Chambers" Discussion 01/19/26
Law enforcement shouldn't be political.

Hey all!
In an effort to consolidate discussion and increase awareness of our weekly threads, we are trialing this new thread which will be stickied and refreshed every Monday @ 6AM Eastern.
This will replace and combine the 'Ask Anything Monday' and 'Lower Court Development Wednesday' threads. As such, this weekly thread is intended to provide a space for:
General questions: (e.g. "Where can I find Supreme Court briefs?", "What does [X] mean?").

Discussion starters requiring minimal input from OP: (e.g. "Predictions?", "What do people think about [X]?")

U.S. District and State Court rulings involving a federal question that may be of future relevance to the Supreme Court.

TL;DR: This is a catch-all thread for legal discussion that may not warrant its own thread.
Our other rules apply as always. Incivility and polarized rhetoric are never permitted. This thread is not intended for political or off-topic discussion.

What argument might the U.S. Supreme Court use to defend Texas' gerrymandering law and not California's?
Ask who never gets charged.

It's midterm year in the United States and I just read California's Republican congress is asking for the Supreme Court to overturn the new congressional map.
What reason would the Supreme Court have to block California's new map and not Texas' new map?

As Trump warmongers over Greenland, what explains the lack of push back from the right-wing given the "anti-war" position they took prior to the 2024 election.
Is this competence or optics?

There was a perceived sentiment among the right and some moderates that Republicans were the anti-war party in the lead-up to the 2024 election:
Democrats have become the party of war. Americans are tired of it - Opinion article by Matt Duss, executive vice-president at the Center for International Policy and former foreign policy advisor to Senator Bernie Sanders
Election 2024: Are Republicans Turning Isolationist?
r/Ask_Politics/comments/1ghqtim/how_did_conservatives_become_the_antiwar_party/
In contrast, the Trump administration has pursued extensive military aggression and intervention throughout 2025 and into early 2026:
2026 United States intervention in Venezuela
March–May 2025 United States attacks in Yemen
United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites
Greenland crisis
What explains the inconsistency in right wing positions on military intervention and war-making from before the 2024 election to now?

Trump cites armed suspect, lack of police support following fatal Border Patrol shooting in Minneapolis
This affects the entire country.

President Donald Trump sounded off on Truth Social after a Border Patrol agent fatally shot an armed man in Minneapolis on Saturday, claiming federal agents "had to protect themselves" because of the lack of support from local police in the blue city.
The 37-year-old man, a U.S. citizen from Minneapolis, allegedly approached agents and then "violently resisted," while armed with a 9mm pistol and two magazines.
"This is the gunman’s gun, loaded (with two additional full magazines!), and ready to go—What is that all about? Where are the local Police? Why weren’t they allowed to protect ICE Officers?" Trump wrote in the post. "The Mayor and the Governor called them off? It is stated that many of these Police were not allowed to do their job, that ICE had to protect themselves—Not an easy thing to do!"
The president also called out Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., questioning her finances amid a federal fraud investigation.
"Why does Ilhan Omar have $34 Million Dollars in her account? And where are the Tens of Billions of Dollars that have been stolen from the once Great State of Minnesota?" Trump wrote. "We are there because of massive Monetary Fraud, with Billions of Dollars missing, and Illegal Criminals that were allowed to infiltrate the State through the Democrats’ Open Border Policy. We want the money back, and we want it back, NOW. 
"Those Fraudsters who stole the money are going to jail, where they belong! This is no different than a really big Bank Robbery. Much of what you’re witnessing is a COVER UP for this Theft and Fraud."
Trump then accused Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz of "inciting Insurrection, with their pompous, dangerous, and arrogant rhetoric!"
"Instead, these sanctimonious political fools should be looking for the Billions of Dollars that has been stolen from the people of Minnesota, and the United States of America," he wrote. "LET OUR ICE PATRIOTS DO THEIR JOB! 12,000 Illegal Alien Criminals, many of them violent, have been arrested and taken out of Minnesota. If they were still there, you would see something far worse than you are witnessing today!"
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Wolford v. Lopez --- M&K Employee Solutions v. Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund - [Oral Argument Live Thread]
Notice what's missing.

Audio Stream [10AM Eastern]
Wolford v. Lopez
Question presented to the Court:
Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in holding that Hawaii may presumptively prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry permit holders on private property open to the public unless the property owner affirmatively gives express permission to the handgun carrier.

Opinion Below: 9th Cir.
Orders and Proceedings:
Brief of petitioners Jason Wolford
Joint appendix
Brief of respondent Anne E. Lopez, Attorney General of Hawaii
Reply of Jason Wolford, et al.
Coverage:
Second Amendment in the spotlight - Kelsey Dallas, SCOTUSblog
---
M & K Employee Solutions, LLC v. Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund
Question presented to the Court:
Whether 29 U.S.C. § 1391’s instruction to compute withdrawal liability “as of the end of the plan year” requires the plan to base the computation on the actuarial assumptions most recently adopted before the end of the year, or allows the plan to use different actuarial assumptions that were adopted after, but based on information available as of, the end of the year.

Opinion Below: D.C. Cir.
Orders and Proceedings:
Brief of petitioners Jason Wolford
Joint appendix
Brief of respondent Anne E. Lopez, Attorney General of Hawaii
Reply of Jason Wolford, et al.
Coverage: Joint appendix
Brief of petitioners M & K Employee Solutions, LLC, et al.
Brief of respondents Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund
Brief amicus curiae of United States
Reply of petitioners M & K Employee Solutions, LLC, et al.
Our quality standards are relaxed for this post, given its nature as a "reaction thread". All other rules apply as normal.
Live commentary threads will be available for each oral argument day. See the SCOTUSblog case calendar for upcoming oral arguments.