Connect with us

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

Business

US Expands Biometric Technology in Airports Despite Privacy Concerns

Published on

 

 

By

Biometric systems promise efficiency at airports, but concerns over data security and transparency persist.

If you’re tired of censorship and surveillance, subscribe to Reclaim The Net.

Biometric technology is being rolled out at US airports at an unprecedented pace, with plans to extend these systems to hundreds more locations in the coming years. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is driving a significant push toward facial recognition and other biometric tools, claiming improved efficiency and security. However, the expansion has sparked growing concerns, with privacy advocates and lawmakers voicing concerns about data security, transparency, and the potential for misuse of such technology.

US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has already implemented its Biometric Facial Comparison system at 238 airports, including 14 international locations. This includes all CBP Preclearance sites and several major departure hubs. CBP says its Biometric Exit program is rapidly gaining traction, with new airport partners joining monthly and positive feedback reported from passengers.

Meanwhile, the TSA has equipped nearly 84 airports with its next-generation Credential Authentication Technology (CAT-2) scanners, which incorporate facial recognition. This rollout is part of a broader effort to bring biometrics to over 400 airports nationwide. These advancements are detailed in a TSA fact sheet aimed at building public awareness of the initiative.

Opposition and Privacy Concerns

Despite assurances from TSA and CBP, critics remain skeptical. Some lawmakers, led by Senator Jeff Merkley, argue that the TSA has yet to justify the need for biometric systems when previous technologies already authenticated IDs effectively. Privacy advocates warn that the widespread use of facial recognition could set a dangerous precedent, normalizing surveillance and threatening individual freedoms.

The debate is closely tied to the federal REAL ID Act, introduced two decades ago to standardize identification requirements for air travel. As of now, many states have failed to fully implement REAL ID standards, and only a portion of Americans have acquired compliant credentials. Reports indicate that fewer than half of Ohio residents and just 32 percent of Kentuckians have updated their IDs, even as the May 7, 2025, deadline approaches.

Biometric Adoption on the Global Stage

Beyond the US, biometric systems are gaining momentum worldwide. India’s Digi Yatra program has attracted 9 million active users, adding 30,000 new downloads daily. The program processes millions of flights while emphasizing privacy by storing data on users’ mobile devices rather than centralized databases. Plans are underway to expand the program further, including international pilots scheduled for mid-2025.

While biometric technology offers alleged benefits, such as faster boarding and enhanced security, it also poses serious risks. Privacy advocates caution against unchecked implementation, especially since, one day, this form of check-in is likely to be mandatory.

The TSA’s aggressive push for biometrics places the United States at the forefront of this global shift.

Continue Reading

International

US Senator Rand Paul warns against government emergency powers, cites Trudeau’s crackdown on Freedom Convoy

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

‘If anyone doubts that emergency powers can be abused, just look to Canada,’ Rand Paul said about Justin Trudeau’s ‘abuse’ of power against the Freedom Convoy and people who donated to it.

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul warned against giving governments emergency powers, citing Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s “abuse” of power against the Freedom Convoy.

During a December 17 session of the U.S. Senate, Paul, who is about to take over as chair of the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, referenced Trudeau’s use of the Emergencies Act (EA) to shut down the 2022 Freedom Convoy to warn of the dangers of unchecked power.

“If anyone doubts that emergency powers can be abused, just look to Canada,” he declared.

Paul recalled February 14, 2022, when Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act to clear out the Freedom Convoy in Ottawa, which protested COVID mandates.

At the time, truckers and other Canadians from across the country were camped out in front of Parliament to demand an end to the COVID restrictions and shot mandates that effectively made unvaxxed Canadians second class citizens, unable to travel or work in most jobs.

Trudeau had disparaged unjabbed Canadians, saying that those opposing his measures were of a “small, fringe minority” who hold “unacceptable views” and do not “represent the views of Canadians who have been there for each other.”

“Instead of simply clearing out protesters and punishing them via conventional legal means, Trudeau invoked emergency powers broad enough to permit the financial un-pursing of anyone participating in the protest,” Paul said.

“He went to their bank accounts and took their money,” Paul continued. “When people raised money voluntarily through crowd financing to help these truckers, he stole that money as well through martial rule, without any rule of law.”

Under the EA, the Trudeau government froze the bank accounts of Canadians who donated to the protest, leaving many Canadians struggling to buy necessities. Trudeau finally revoked the EA on February 23 after the protesters had been cleared out. At the time, seven of Canada’s 10 provinces  opposed Trudeau’s use of the EA.

“Men and women will succumb to the desire for power,” he explained. “It’s inherent in all. That’s why we must have checks and balances.”

“Trudeau could freeze a bank account without a court order, without due process,” Paul warned. “And while native-born Americans may think that emergency powers are to be used to target others, I would venture to guess that the Canadian truckers protesting COVID era mandates didn’t expect that their government would treat them as foreign adversaries and freeze their accounts.”

“If it can happen in Canada, it can happen in the U.S.,” he declared.

Continue Reading

Trending

X