Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

International

U.S. Supreme Court to rule on major cases in 2025

Published

6 minute read

From The Center Square

By 

The U.S. Supreme Court has released a string of landmark rulings recently, from sending the abortion issue back to the states to granting a measure of presidential immunity to the overturning of Chevron deference, significantly weakening federal rulemaking power.

Supreme Court terms begin and end in October, and heading into the new year there are major cases awaiting.

Here are five of the biggest cases in which the Supreme Court is expected to weigh in by the end of this term:

Tik Tok Ban

Many lawmakers and national security experts have raised concerns about the invasive software attached to Tik Tok, a hugely popular entertainment app that reportedly has about 150 million active users.

China is the parent company for the app and has access to millions of Americans personal data through the Tik Tok software, which is unusually invasive and collects much more personal data on its users than other similar apps.

President Joe Biden signed into law a ban on the app unless it is sold to a U.S. company, citing these concerns.

While that ban had bipartisan support, President-elect Donald Trump weighed in on the case this week, asking the Supreme Court to delay the ban from going into effect.

“In light of these interests – including, most importantly, his overarching responsibility for the United States’ national security and foreign policy –  President Trump opposes banning TikTok in the United States at this juncture, and seeks the ability to resolve the issues at hand through political means once he takes office,” Trump’s lawyer said in a brief filed with the court.

During the presidential campaign, Trump promised to “save Tik Tok.”

“Furthermore, President Trump alone possesses the consummate dealmaking expertise, the electoral mandate, and the political will to negotiate a resolution to save the platform while addressing the national security concerns expressed by the Government – concerns which President Trump himself has acknowledged,” the brief read.

Transgender Surgeries for Minors

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments last fall in United States v. Skrmetti, a case that considers the constitutionality of a Tennessee bill that bans transgender surgeries and hormones for minors.

Those medical procedures have become increasingly controversial since they can sterilize the recipients and are sometimes later regretted when the children come of age.

The Supreme Court ruling could kill or encourage similar efforts in states around the country.

Ghost Guns

In Garland v. VanDerStok, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives faces a legal challenge to its Biden-era rule attempting to block “ghost guns,” firearms without serial numbers that can be 3-D printed or put together by someone who acquires individual parts.

In particular, kits can be bought online that allow buyers to assemble a weapon. The case in question will require the justices to determine whether a disassembled kit of firearm parts is still considered a “firearm” and therefore subject to federal rules, especially rules requiring a serial number.

During oral arguments last fall, justices seemed skeptical of the legal challenge to the federal rule.

Age Verification for Pornography

The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments Jan. 15 in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, a legal challenge to a Texas law requiring pornography sites to use age verification to prevent minors from seeing their pornographic content.

Critics have cited free speech concerns while proponents of the law have pointed out that there is legal precedent for age verification which is required for other products like alcohol and tobacco and has been required to view R-rated movies in theaters.

Pornography sites have pushed back on the law, which has been adopted in a similar fashion in about 20 Republican states around the country.

“Let me put this simply: these companies do not have a right to expose children to pornography,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement. “Texas has a clear interest in protecting children, and we have been successful defending this commonsense age verification law against a powerful global industry.”

Environmental Impact

The Supreme Court in December heard oral arguments in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, a case where justices will consider just how expansive the environmental constraints can become on federal agency actions.

Under the National Environmental Policy Act, federal agencies are required to assess the “foreseeable impact” on the environment of their actions.

However, just how broad that assessment must be is up for consideration.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Crime

Tucker Carlson: US intelligence is shielding Epstein network, not President Trump

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Robert Jones

Pam Bondi’s shifting story and Trump’s dismissal of Epstein questions have reignited scrutiny over the sealed files.

Tucker Carlson is raising new concerns about a possible intelligence cover-up in the Jeffrey Epstein case—this time implicating U.S. and Israeli agencies, as well as Trump ally and former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi.

During a recent broadcast, Carlson discussed U.S. Attorney General Bondi’s refusal to release sealed Epstein files, along with the FBI and DOJ announcement that Epstein did not have a client list and did indeed kill himself.

Carlson offered two theories for Bondi’s words. The first: “Trump is involved—that Trump is on the list, that they’ve got a tape of Trump doing something awful.”

But Carlson quickly dismissed that idea, noting he’s spoken to Trump about Epstein and believes he wasn’t part of “creepy” activities. He also pointed out that the Biden administration holds the evidence and would likely have acted if there were grounds.

Carlson’s second theory: the intelligence services are “at the very center of this story” and are being protected. His guest, Saagar Enjeti, agreed. “That’s the most obvious ,” Enjeti said, referencing past CIA-linked pedophilia cases. He noted the agency had avoided prosecutions for fear suspects would reveal “sources and methods” in court.

The exchange aired as critics accused Bondi of shifting her account of what’s in the files. She previously referenced “tens of thousands of videos of Epstein with children,” but later claimed they were videos of child pornography downloaded by Epstein. Observers say that revision changes the legal and narrative stakes—and raises questions about credibility.

Donald Trump also appeared impatient with the matter. “Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein? That is unbelievable,” he said in a video beside Bondi. This clip sparked backlash from longtime Trump supporters, including former Trump advisor Elon Musk, who reposted critical commentary on Trump and Bondi’s comments on X:

Musk previously alleged that Trump was himself implicated in the Epstein files. Although he retracted and apologized for this, he recently suggested that Steve Bannon was also implicated.

However, Carlson’s guest suggested that Bondi’s comments had another purpose. “The lie is a signal to everybody else involved,” he said. “The lie is not for you and me. The lie is for those implicated to say, ‘No matter what, we will protect you.’”

The files in question remain sealed. It is unclear whether further revelations about Epstein will come to light, but Trump’s comments are not going to make the issue go away.

Continue Reading

International

No more shoes off: Trump ends TSA’s decades-old rule

Published on

MXM logo MxM News

Quick Hit:

The Trump administration is phasing out one of the most despised airport security policies in America: the requirement to remove shoes during TSA screening.

Key Details:

  • Passengers will no longer be required to remove their shoes at airport security checkpoints in coming weeks.
  • The change is rolling out at Baltimore, Fort Lauderdale, Cincinnati, Portland, Philadelphia, and Piedmont Triad airports.
  • White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed the policy reversal on Tuesday morning.

Diving Deeper:

The Trump administration announced it is ending the much-loathed Transportation Security Administration rule requiring passengers to remove their shoes during security checks, a mandate that has frustrated Americans since its introduction nearly two decades ago.

The change is being implemented first at Baltimore/Washington International Airport, Fort Lauderdale International Airport, Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport, Portland International Airport, Philadelphia International Airport, and Piedmont Triad International Airport in North Carolina, according to CBS News. The policy will expand to additional airports nationwide in the coming weeks.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt shared the news on X, posting, “Big news from [the Department of Homeland Security]!” Tuesday morning. A TSA spokesman told The New York Times that “TSA and DHS are always exploring new and innovative ways to enhance the passenger experience and our strong security posture,” suggesting the policy change is part of broader improvements under President Trump’s leadership.

The policy to remove shoes was first instituted in 2006, stemming from the December 2001 attempt by Richard Reid, known as the “shoe bomber,” to ignite explosives hidden in his shoes on a flight from Paris to Miami. Reid was sentenced to life in prison after pleading guilty to terrorism charges, but critics have argued the policy punishes every American traveler for the actions of one terrorist nearly 25 years ago.

Before the update, travelers in the TSA PreCheck program were already exempt from removing shoes, belts, and jackets. Now, under President Trump’s directive to reduce pointless regulatory burdens, the policy is being eliminated for all travelers.

Continue Reading

Trending

X