> Can you provide an example where they've ignored a Supreme Court ruling?
How about the case where the Supreme Court told the administration to obey a lower court's order and facilitate Kilmar Abrego Garcia's return to the US [1]? The Trump administration openly defied the Supreme Court's order for nearly 2 months (April 11 to June 6) [2][3]. Setting aside whether the "temporary" violation of a Supreme Court order has been legally resolved, the administration brought Garcia back to press (hypocritical and doubtful) human smuggling charges to justify deporting Garcia again, and a judge let Garcia stay in jail for longer otherwise necessary because the judge thought the administration would deport Garcia before he could have his trial [4].
"Facilitate" was a weasel word that the Supreme Court knew would allow the administration to play as it wished, hence why it was affirmed by this Court.
If the Supreme Court had wanted to order him back immediately, it would have done so.
The facts are that this administration has skated on and just over the line with regards to lower courts, especially in matters of immigration, but has yet to ignore a directive from the Supreme Court.
If you're aware of an actual example, feel free to provide it.
> You can't go to court (usually) on a hypothetical. You usually need someone who has been actually affected. That can't happen until the law actually takes effect (September).
I think a Texas college or a student of one could bring a facial challenge to this law before it goes into effect. The following two excerpts of S.B. 2972 [1] (the second one consisting of spliced fragments) should be enough to demonstrate that the law would inevitably, not hypothetically, restrict a student's freedom of speech:
> "Expressive activities" means any speech or expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or by Section 8, Article I, Texas Constitution
`Each institution of higher education shall adopt a policy detailing... rights and responsibilities regarding expressive activities at the institution. The policy must... prohibit... engaging in expressive activities on campus between the hours of 10 p.m. and 8 a.m.`
Oh, I agree that it's blatantly unconstitutional. I'm just not sure that a court will accept a facial challenge. Once someone's been arrested, though, a court is going to have a hard time turning it away.
In the ideal world, there would be a facial challenge and a temporary restraining order on implementation of the law, pending the challenge being finally decided. I'm just not sure that it will happen that way (or that quickly).
Classes and homework take up a massive chunk of daytime hours, and nighttime hours for some students. Swap protest and homework hours? Be unable to work with other students on homework at night. Additionally, on the day of a protest, if I were a leader of any large gathering of people I would prefer to start talking to the other planners before 8 AM.
Take the author's interpretations and normative suggestions with a grain of salt. Cremieux personally promotes scientific racism (like in an article called "Elites are genetically different" [1]), defends discredited data from eugenicist Richard Lynn [2][3], and co-wrote a paper called "Global Ancestry and Cognitive Ability" with Bryan Pesta [4], Emil Kirkegaard ("Eugenics or Western civilization dies" [5]), and John Fuerst ("all major Jewish organizations... favor the dissolution of their host nations through massive non-White immigration" [6]).
Side note: In an article questioning why Zohran Mamdani of Indian descent born in Uganda would mark checkboxes for "Asian" and "Black or African American" among the limited options in a university application [7][8], The New York Times cited Cremieux without even hinting at his past writings, then edited the article to describe Cremieux as "an academic" who "writes often about I.Q. and race". As Marc Channick pointed out [9]:
> This is basically like describing a Pizzagate promoter as someone "who writes often about child safety"
I sincerely hope the pendulum doesn't swing back too soon, not in a political environment that lets Tennessee House Representative Andy Ogles feel perfectly comfortable making openly Islamophobic and racist tweets like [1]:
> Zohran "little muhammad" Mamdani is an antisemitic, socialist, communist who will destroy the great City of New York. He needs to be DEPORTED. Which is why I am calling for him to be subject to denaturalization proceedings.
It's bad because local Australian businesses can't use similar names to "In-N-Out" during the other 1000 days without getting sued for trademark infringement. Example from the featured article:
> In 2020, a Sydney burger chain formerly known as “Down N’ Out” lost an appeal to flip a court decision that forced it to stop using its name and hand over its signs and promotional materials after being sued by In-N-Out Burger for trademark infringement in 2017.
> We're Walling Off The Open Internet To Stop AI—And It May End Up Breaking Everything Else
reply