#Judiciary Act

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Holly Brewer at The New Republic:

In October 2020, just a few weeks before he would defeat President Donald Trump, Joe Biden made his clearest statement yet on whether Democrats—if so empowered by voters—should expand the Supreme Court. “I’m not a fan of court-packing, but I don’t want to get off on that whole issue,” Biden said. “I want to keep focused. The president would love nothing better than to fight about whether or not I would, in fact, pack the court or not pack the court.” But Republicans had already packed the court. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death handed President Trump the third opportunity to appoint a justice (Amy Coney Barrett) and thereby to create a 6–3 archconservative majority on the court for a generation or more. Many understood then that such a lopsided court could do untold damage to the progressive accomplishments of the past century. But Biden, ever the institutionalist, squashed the notion of rebalancing the court in the unlikely event that Democrats won unified control of Washington. The unlikely did, of course, happen: Democrats took the White House and both chambers of Congress. And still, Biden demurred on court rebalancing. That was a mistake. [...]

Over the past two decades, and especially since 2021, the Roberts court has instead made headlines, overturning federal and state laws, some of them in place for a hundred years or more, and reversing earlier major court decisions. The court has upended the ability of government agencies to do their jobs—to regulate clean air and water, limit the taking of bribes (by this court now redefined as “gratuities”), protect consumers and workers, and so much more. It has redefined human rights, undercutting the right to vote and the right to an abortion. In conversations with law professors across their country, I hear despair: How are they even supposed to teach administrative or constitutional law? There are no standards anymore.

These Supreme Court decisions have been based on tortured originalist readings. While one might disagree with the outcome, and the extent of the intervention, at least one felt there was a certain logic behind these cases, a logic by which the decisions could be engaged and challenged. But the decision in Trump v. United States had no such reasoning, not even a pretense of constitutional interpretation. The sweeping decision, more than any other over the past decade and more, exposed a raw partisanship and lack of principle. It not only set a dramatic new precedent that changes 235 years of understanding about the role of the president but it rewrote the Constitution, unbalancing it in favor of the president—and without apology. It made no pretense of considering the potential costs or risks of its dramatic intervention, as has been the norm for major Supreme Court decisions. It arguably removed most checks on presidential power.

Biden could have tried to stop such judicial overreach in 2021 by pushing to amend the Judiciary Act, which sets the size of the Supreme Court. (In April of that year, House Democrats put forth a bill to do exactly that, expanding the court to 12 associate justices.) He chose not to, opting instead to create a court reform commission, whose members were divided on expanding the court. That group’s final report summarized many of the arguments in favor of expansion, especially the extraordinary actions by then–Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to refuse to consider Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland. But then they listed concerns. Some scholars argued that expanding the court for partisan reasons would merely lead to a cycle of tit for tat, undermining the court’s legitimacy. Ultimately they decided not to recommend it.

[...] Reforming the size of the court has happened many times over the years. Seven times between 1801 and 1869, Congress changed the size of the court, going from a low of five justices in 1801 to a high of 10 in 1863. In most of those cases, as in 1801 and 1863, the size went up and down in order to fix an imbalance or overreach by the Supreme Court. In 1863 and 1867, revisions to the Judiciary Act sought to rein in a Supreme Court that was potentially pro-slavery. Now we need to rein in one that is pro-authoritarian. [...] At this moment, a bill is on the table to expand the size of the court to 12 associate justices, which would match the number of justices to the number of circuit courts, thus giving each justice primary responsibility for decisions from one circuit. Right now, the justices are overloaded, with too much responsibility. Expanding the court makes pragmatic and logical sense, and could happen gradually; Congress could allow the nomination of two justices now and another two in four years.

The concerns of 1937, or of 2020, about increasing the size of the court have now been neutralized by this court’s unprincipled overreach. While the full consequences of all the court’s recent decisions are yet to be seen, they will impact all of us, and increasingly so, given the courts’ essential role in enforcing the laws. Regardless of where one stands on the political spectrum, all should now see that the unprincipled political maneuvering that created the current majority on the Supreme Court has undermined our system of government. We need new, principled judges to keep the extremist justices on the Robert’s court, and now the newly empowered president, in line. Many Democrats in Congress grasp their constitutional responsibility to regulate the judiciary, and are willing to exercise it to rebalance the Supreme Court. Now it needs to become a central part of the Democratic platform. Biden and his team need to wake up. It is not enough to merely dissent, as Biden did after the decision in Trump v. U.S. He needs to help restore the balance. 

The case for expanding SCOTUS has become even more urgent in the wake of several recent rulings (Loper Bright Enterprises and Trump) made by the the 6-3 MAGA majority that have made America worse off. #ExpandSCOTUS

[ivygorgon]

AN OPEN LETTER to THE U.S. CONGRESS

Roe is gone. Expand the Supreme Court before we lose all of our other rights!

7186 so far! Help us get to 10000 signers!

I’m furious and sickened by today's ruling from the Supreme Court. Striking down Roe v Wade is just the latest example of their growing partisanship and religious extremism. We are not safe as long as this court continues to wield their power this corruptly.

Congress needs to institute Court reforms. To start, they should pass the Judiciary Act (S 1141/ HR 2584) to expand the number of judges on the court; they also need to pass the Judicial Ethics and Anti-Corruption Act (S 4177/HR 7706).

This is urgent. Our system of laws rests upon the idea that the Supreme Court is impartial. Ours absolutely is not. Do something about it. Thanks.

▶ Created on June 24 2022 by Jess Craven

📱 Text SIGN PXFDAP to 50409

🤯 Liked it? Text FOLLOW JESSCRAVEN101 to 50409

[todaysdocument]

An Act to Establish the Federal Courts of the United States

Record Group 11: General Records of the United States GovernmentSeries: Enrolled Acts and Resolutions of CongressFile Unit: Public Law, 1st Congress, 1st Session, Part 1: United States Judicial Courts. September 24, 1789

In the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress established with great particularity a limited jurisdiction for the district and circuit courts, gave the Supreme Court the original jurisdiction provided for in the Constitution, and granted the Court appellate jurisdiction in cases from the Federal circuit courts and from the state courts where those courts' rulings had rejected Federal claims. The decision to grant Federal courts a jurisdiction more restrictive than that allowed by the Constitution represented a recognition by the Congress that the people of the United States would not find a full-blown Federal court system palatable at that time. For nearly all of the next century the judicial system remained essentially as established by the Judiciary Act of 1789.

Congress of the United States,

begun and held at the City of New York on

Wednesday the fourth of March one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

[centered heading/title:] An Act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

That the Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of a Chief Justice and five associate justices, any four of whom shall be a quorum, and shall hold annually at the seat of government two sessions, the one commencing the first Monday of February, and the other the first Monday of August. That the associate Justices shall have precedence according to the date of their Commissions, or when the Commissions of two or more of them bear date on the same day, according to their respective ages.

And be it further enacted, That the United States shall be, and they hereby are divided into thirteen districts, to be limited and called as follows, to wit: One to consist of that part of the State of Massachusetts which lies easterly of the State of New Hampshire, and to be called Main [sic] district; One to consist of the State of New Hampshire, and to be called New Hampshire district; One to consist of the remaining part of the State of Massachusetts, and to be called Massachusetts district; One to consist of the State of Connecticut, and to be called Connecticut district; One to consist of the State of New York, and to be called New York district; One to consist of the State of New Jersey, and to be called New Jersey district; One to consist of the State of Pennsylvania, and to be called Pennsylvania district; One to consist of the State of Delaware, and to be called Delaware district; One to consist of the State of Maryland, and to be called Maryland district; One to consist of the State of Virginia, except that part called the district of Kentucky, and to be called Virginia district; One to consist of the remaining part of the State of Virginia, and to be called Kentucky district; One to consist of the State of South Carolina, and to be called South Carolina district; and one to consist of the State of Georgia, and to be called Georgia district.

 [complete document and transcription at link]

[youthchronical]

With Deportations to El Salvador, Trump May Have Defied a Judge’s Order

The Trump administration moved one large step closer to a constitutional showdown with the judicial branch of government when airplane-loads of Venezuelan detainees deplaned in El Salvador even though a federal judge had ordered that the planes reverse course and return the detainees to the United States. The right-wing president of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, bragged that the 238 detainees who…

[justinssportscorner]

Mira Lazine at LGBTQ Nation:

A Tuesday hearing on gambling addiction turned awry when Senators John Kennedy (R-LA) and Josh Hawley (R-MO) suddenly turned the conversation towards the issue of transgender inclusion in sports.

In a hearing about the Supporting Affordability and Fairness with Every Bet Act (SAFE Bet Act) — a law that is meant to discourage sports gambling addiction — the two senators barraged NCAA chief Charlie Baker with questions about “allowing biological males” to play games with “biological females.” Kennedy told him to “stand up in front of God and country” and oppose trans women’s inclusion in sports, and to “stand up and take a leadership position,” as well as to “go to Amazon and buy a spine online.” Hawley then jumped in and repeatedly talked over Baker, raising his voice to claim that “there is no federal law” that allows trans women to play against women and to shout “This is your federal policy that you will not defend because it is indefensible.” He also questioned Baker about recent forfeitures against San Jose State University due to them allegedly having a single trans player on their team. Despite Hawley’s claim, the U.S. Constitution and federal law guarantee equal treatment of college athletes. While this should include trans athletes, there have been recent scientific and political debates about whether trans female athletes have biological advantages over cisgender competitors. Republicans have largely opposed trans inclusion in sports and vilified trans athletes and their allies as harming cis female athletes.

Baker was also asked by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) how many trans athletes there were. Out of 510,000 total athletes, Baker said, there are less than 10 total in NCAA schools (a figure that translates to fewer than 0.002% of all NCAA athletes). Baker also defended trans women, saying it was “debatable” whether they’d always, no matter what have a physical advantage over cisgender women. There is no concrete evidence that trans women have an unfair advantage in sports. A recent study found that trans women have equivalent physical metrics to cisgender women after being on hormone replacement therapy. Few other studies examine trans athletes in comparison to cisgender athletes. Sen. Durbin continued on X, “510,000 NCAA athletes. Ten or fewer transgender NCAA athletes nationwide. Let’s focus on ways to actually improve women’s sports.”

Last week’s hearing that was purportedly about the SAFE Bet Act in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee instead turned into an manufactured temper tantrum session on NCAA policies over trans athletes by GOP Senators on the committee.

NCAA head Charlie Baker testified, and when grilled by Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin (D-IL), Baker stated that there are 10 or so trans athletes in the whole of collegiate sport.

[captainxtra]

Rep. Jamie Raskin explains why the GOP is ramping up their attacks on the judicial branch—and what it has to do with Donald Trump's (and Elon Musk's) pursuit of absolute, unchecked power.

———

One the pieces of Legislation to limit Judicial Power mentioned by Raskin is the No Rogue Rulings Act (NORRA), there’s two articles discussing it but they’re from right leaning sources so take caution when reading:

[megayogiposts]

Understanding RTI Appeals: A Case Study of Lucknow District Court

Registration NumberDNLKO/A/2025/60001NameYogi M P SinghDate of Filing11/01/2025StatusRTI APPEAL RECEIVED as on 11/01/2025  Nodal Officer Details  NameSHIVENDRA MISHRAEmail-IDchief.shivendra@gmail.com Online RTI Appeal Form Details Public Authority Details :-   * Public AuthorityDistrict Court Lucknow   Personal Details:- * NameYogi M P SinghGenderMale* AddressMohalla Surekapuram colony ,…

[harriswalz4usabybr]

Remarks Vice President Made at the US Courthouse in Saipan, NMI!

~BR~

[emergingpakistan]

متنازع پیکا قانون کا مقصد جمہوریت کا گلا گھونٹنا ہے

صحافیوں نے سڑکوں پر احتجاج کیا، انسانی حقوق کی تنظیموں نے ممکنہ خطرناک نتائج کے حوالے سے خبردار کیا اور ڈیجیٹل رائٹس کے ماہرین نے بھی مخالفت میں آوازیں بلند کیں لیکن تمام کوششیں بے کار ثابت ہوئیں۔ اور اب صدر کے دستخط کے بعد پیکا ترامیم آئین کا حصہ بن چکی ہیں جو ہمارے ملک کی جمہوریت کو شدید نقصان پہنچا سکتی ہیں۔ جتنی عجلت میں یہ معاملہ نمٹایا گیا وہ انتہائی حیران کُن تھا۔ سول سوسائٹی نے مشاورت کرنے کی درخواست کی، عجلت کے بجائے بغور نظرثانی کرنے کی بات کی لیکن ان کی شنوائی نہ ہوئی۔ اب اس سخت گیر قانون پر دستخط کی سیاہی خشک ہوچکی ہے اور اب یہ حتمی قانون لوگوں کو اظہار رائے کرنے سے خوفزدہ کررہا ہے۔ نئے قانون میں سیکشن 26 اے متعارف کروایا گیا ہے جس میں نام نہاد فیک نیوز (جس کی تعریف کی وضاحت نہیں کی گئی) پھیلانے والوں کو 3 س��ل سزا اور 20 لاکھ روپے جرمانے کی سزائیں ہو سکتی ہیں۔ لیکن جعلی خبر کی تعریف کیا ہے؟ کون فیصلہ کرے گا کہ کون سی معلومات لوگوں میں ’خوف، اضطراب یا بےامنی‘ کا باعث بنیں گی؟

تاریخ گواہی دیتی ہے کہ جب قوانین کی درست وضاحت نہ کی جائے تو ان کا منصفانہ انداز میں اطلاق نہیں ہوتا۔ پاکستان پیپلز پارٹی جو آزادی صحافت کی علم بردار تھی، ایسی ترامیم کی حمایت کر کے اب وہ اس نظریے کے حامی بن چکی ہے جس کے تحت جمہوریت کو محفوظ بنانے کا بہترین راستہ اس کا گلا گھونٹ دینا ہے۔ وزیر اطلاعات عطا اللہ تاڑر نے جس طرح ’ورکنگ صحافیوں‘ اور ’اپنے فون نکالنے‘ والے شہریوں کے درمیان فرق کو بیان کیا، اس نے اس دور کی یاد تازہ کردی کہ جب گھڑسوار خبروں کو ایک جگہ سے دوسری جگہ پہنچاتے تھے. وہ دور کہ جب خبروں کے تبادلے سست اور زیرِ کنٹرول ہوتے تھے۔ حکومت کا یہ دعویٰ کہ ان ترامیم کا مقصد شہریوں کو تحفظ فراہم کرنا ہے، مخلص نہیں لگتا۔ درحقیقت نئی نیشنل سائبر کرائم انویسٹی گیشن ایجنسی اور سوشل میڈیا پروٹیکشن اینڈ ریگولیٹری اتھارٹی کے قیام نے ان کے اصل ارادے کو آشکار کیا ہے۔ 

حکومت پاکستان کے ڈیجیٹل ماحول پر ایسا کنٹرول حاصل کرنا چاہتی ہے کہ جس کی ماضی میں ہمیں کوئی مثال نہیں ملتی۔ اس قانون کا مقصد مخالف آوازوں کو دبانا نہیں بلکہ ان کا مکمل خاتمہ ہے۔ ایسی ترامیم منظور ہی نہیں ہونی چاہیے تھیں۔ حکومت کے پاس معنی خیر مذاکرات کا راستہ تھا منصفانہ اور شفاف طریقہ کار کے ذریعے میڈیا کے ضوابط کو مضبوط کرنے اور بنیادی حقوق کو پامال کیے بغیر غلط معلومات کا مقابلہ کرنے کی راہ موجود تھی۔ مگر انہوں نے مذاکرات کے بجائے جبر کا راستہ چنا۔ پاکستانی صحافی، ڈیجیٹل کارکنان اور عام شہریوں کو ایسے مذموم قانون کے خلاف طویل جنگ لڑنے کی تیاری کرنی چاہیے جو انہیں خاموش کروانے کے لیے بنایا گیا ہے۔ سوال یہ ہے کہ کیا عدالت عوامی حقوق و آزادی کے دفاع کرتے ہوئے قانون کا مقابلہ کریں گی؟ اس سوال کا جواب شاید ملک میں آزادی اظہار کے مستقبل کا تعین کرسکتا ہے۔

بشکریہ ڈان نیوز

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Last week, the Supreme Court’s far-right majority went home for the summer, but only after a stark reminder that they do not serve the people of this country — they serve Donald Trump and MAGA extremism. They serve wealthy corporations exploiting our communities. They serve whichever right-wing billionaire gives them the most gifts. This term, the same extremist justices who overturned the constitutional right to abortion and ended affirmative action doubled down on the court’s legacy of protecting the interests of wealth and white supremacy. These unelected justices have pulled off a judicial coup on behalf of fascists and billionaires. They have enabled Trump to evade accountability. They have opened the door for the MAGA cult to destroy our rights through Project 2025. They have greenlit the criminalization of homelessness. They have left millions of people in states like Missouri vulnerable to bans on emergency abortions and other attacks on reproductive rights. And they have provided a road map for wealthy corporations to harm our planet and our communities by handcuffing the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration and countless other agencies from regulating them. The Republican-appointed justices are fighting a war on behalf of far-right extremists against the people of this country, and they are just getting started. Congress has a choice to make: reform the court or bear witness to the death of democracy and the destruction of the communities it should protect. [...] Court reform is personal for me — not just as a member of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees, but as a survivor of gun violence, as someone who has had an abortion, as the daughter of a former union meat cutter, and as a congresswoman representing a community that has been systematically denied the right to vote. And it should be personal to everyone who cares about our democracy and our freedoms. The gavel’s fall should signify justice served, not lives destroyed. Our lives and our communities are worse off because of this unchecked, extremist Supreme Court. The time for reform is now. Congress must remove lawless justices through impeachment — that’s why this week my colleagues and I introduced articles of impeachment against Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito over their multiple ethical conflicts and failures to disclose. Congress must also pass legislation that imposes a binding code of ethics for every justice. We must expand the Court to 13 seats by passing the Judiciary Act, which I proudly co-lead. Congress must enact term limits for the justices. Finally, we must strip the Supreme Court of its power to invalidate federal laws that protect our fundamental rights.

Rep. Cori Bush (D-MO) for MSNBC.com on why the Supreme Court needs significant reforms to dilute the radical right-wing MAGA Majority influence, such as expansion of the court to 13, a binding code of ethics, and term limits (07.11.2024).

Rep. Cori Bush (D-MO) wrote a solid editorial on MSNBC.com calling for judicial reforms to neuter the MAGA Majority on the court, such as expansion to 13, term limits, and a binding ethics code. Hopefully the people in MO-01 vote her again.

[seemabhatnagar]

"Upholding Harmony: Allahabad High Court Facilitates Reconciliation in a Complex Bail Case"

Can the law transform strained relationships into harmonious unions?

In a decisive judgment, the Allahabad High Court weaves justice with compassion, emphasizing the significance of trust, responsibility, and the well-being of the innocent amidst allegations of betrayal and broken promises.

#liveinrelationship #reconciliation #childwelfare #SpecialMarriageAct

➡️The applicant, Atul Gautam, has been in custody since September 16, 2024, in connection with a Criminal Case Under Sections 376, 323, 504, and 506 IPC at Madiaon Police Station, Lucknow.

🔹The prosecutrix, a Muslim woman, alleges breach of a promise to marry, leading to strained relations. The couple had been in a live-in relationship and had a 5-month-old daughter.

#judicialsensitivity #societalharmony #amicableresolution

🔴Whether bail should be granted to the applicant, given the allegations of rape under false promise to marry, coupled with the applicant's stated willingness to marry the prosecutrix and secure her and the child’s future.

#mutualresponsibilities #evolvingjudiciary #womenandchildwelfare

➡️The petitioner Atul Gautam's submission before the Court was

🔹False implication by the prosecutrix upon him.

🔹He is willing to marry the prosecutrix under the Special Marriage Act.

🔹He offered to secure the financial future of the prosecutrix and child by creating a Fixed Deposit (FDR) of ₹5 lakhs.

➡️The Counsel for the State and the prosecutrix initially opposed the bail, citing apprehensions regarding the applicant’s conduct post-marriage and the prosecutrix’s security.

#bailcase #bailcondition #justice #AllahabadHighCourt

➡️The High Court observed

🔹The Court found a mutual willingness of both parties to reconcile and live together as husband and wife.

🔹The prosecutrix expressed concerns about her and her child’s monetary security.

🔹The Court considered the applicant’s offer to establish a ₹5 lakh FDR and his willingness to marry promptly as bona fide steps toward resolving the dispute.

#monetarysecurity #Rupeesfivelakhfixeddeposit

➡️The High Court granted bail with the condition

🔹Initiate marriage proceedings under the Special Marriage Act within seven days of release.

🔹Ensure the marriage is registered with the concerned authority.

🔹Create a ₹5 lakh Fixed Deposit in the name of the infant child through the prosecutrix.

[todaysdocument]

Judiciary Act of 1801

Record Group 46: Records of the U.S. SenateSeries: Bills and Resolutions Originating in the SenateFile Unit: Bills and Resolutions Originating in the Senate in the 6th Congress

A bill An act [crossed out] to amend an act intituted an act to establish the judicial courts of the U.S [crossed out] United States. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the U.S.[crossed out] United States of America in congress assembled - that jurors to serve ordinarily in the courts of the U.S. shall be drawn by lot in each state [illegible] according to the mode [a word scribbled out] practiced [a word scribbled out] and from the selection made for jurors to serve in the highest courts of law therein. Provided, such selection shall be sufficient, and the laws of the state do or shall [illegible] the same to the courts or marshals of the U.[crossed out] United States.

Bill to amend act Judicial Courts

April 8th

1800

apr 8 recd 1st & pass'd to 2d

L

b Cary

[illegible]

[gwydionmisha]

This is just the tip of the spear. If he wins here, he will keep expanding it to remove anyone he doesn't like.

Normal deportation proceedings would work, but he's trying to establish a precedent.

[youthchronical]

Musk’s Team Must Produce Documents to Comply With Open Records Laws, Judge Says

A federal judge found on Monday that Elon Musk’s government-cutting unit is likely subject to public disclosure laws and must promptly turn over documents to a group that had sued for access to its internal emails. In his order, Judge Christopher R. Cooper of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia wrote that the Department of Government Efficiency Mr. Musk leads had all the…

[ivygorgon]

AN OPEN LETTER to THE U.S. SENATE

The Senate must prioritize confirming progressive judges ASAP!

170 so far! Help us get to 250 signers!

I’m writing because our federal judiciary matters to me and the time is now to make our courts work for all of us.

The end of the last Supreme Court term was filled with devastating decisions that will have lasting effects on our lives. Gun safety, separation of church and state, the government’s ability to fight climate change, and of course abortion rights were all significantly weakened by the radical decisions of the Trump Court. We need a path forward, and one critical way is to ensure our lower courts are filled with diverse judges committed to equal justice.

There are a number of nominees waiting for the Senate to act. Please prioritize confirming all nominees who are or will be awaiting full Senate action by the end of the 117th Congress. We need judges who protect the rights of all of us, not just the wealthy and powerful. Thanks.

▶ Created on November 15, 2022 by Jess Craven

📱 Text SIGN PEBTUY to 50409

🤯 Liked it? Text FOLLOW JESSCRAVEN101 to 50409

[captainxtra]

So a House Vote on the No Rogue Rulings Act is going to occur on the week of April 7th, good time to find your Rep:

If you call or write, please be civil and don't CAPS LOCK everything.