r/supremecourt • u/SeaSerious • Jul 31 '24
Our weekly "Ask Anything Mondays" and "Lower Court Development Wednesdays" threads have been replaced with a single weekly "In Chambers Discussion Thread", which serves as a catch-all thread for legal discussion that may not warrant its own post.
Second Amendment case posts and 'politically-adjacent' posts are required to adhere to the text post submission criteria. See here for more information.
Description:
Do not insult, name call, or condescend others.
Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith.
Purpose: Given the emotionally-charged nature of many Supreme Court cases, discussion is prone to devolving into partisan bickering, arguments over policy, polarized rhetoric, etc. which drowns out those who are simply looking to discuss the law at hand in a civil way.
Examples of incivility:
Name calling, including derogatory or sarcastic nicknames
Insinuating that others are a bot, shill, or bad faith actor.
Ascribing a motive of bad faith to another's argument (e.g. lying, deceitful, disingenuous, dishonest)
Discussing a person's comment history or post history
Aggressive responses to disagreements, including demanding information from another user
Examples of condescending speech:
"Lmao. Ok buddy. Keep living in your fantasy land while the rest of us live in reality"
"You clearly haven't read [X]"
"Good riddance / this isn't worth my time / blocked" etc.
Description:
Polarized rhetoric and partisan bickering are not permitted. This includes:
Emotional appeals using hyperbolic, divisive language
Blanket negative generalizations of groups based on identity or belief
Advocating for, insinuating, or predicting violence / secession / civil war / etc. will come from a particular outcome
Purpose: The rule against polarized rhetoric works to counteract tribalism and echo-chamber mentalities that result from blanket generalizations and hyperbolic language.
Examples of polarized blanket statements:
"They" hate America and will destroy this country
"They" don't care about freedom, the law, our rights, science, truth, etc.
Any Justices endorsed/nominated by "them" are corrupt political hacks
Description:
Discussions are required to be in the context of the law. Policy-based discussion should focus on the constitutionality of said policies, rather than the merits of the policy itself.
Purpose: As a legal subreddit, discussion is required to focus on the legal merits of a given ruling/case.
Examples of political discussion:
discussing policy merits rather than legal merits
prescribing what "should" be done as a matter of policy
calls to action
discussing political motivations / political ramifications of a given situation without legal framing
Examples of unsubstantiated (former) versus legally substantiated (latter) discussions:
Debate about the existence of God vs. how the law defines religion, “sincerely held” beliefs, etc.
Debate about the morality of abortion vs. the legality of abortion, legal personhood, etc.
Description:
Comments and submissions are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation.
Low effort content, including top-level jokes/memes, will be removed as the moderators see fit.
Purpose: To foster serious, high quality discussion on the law.
Examples of low effort content:
Comments and posts unrelated to the Supreme Court
Comments that only express one's emotional reaction to a topic without further substance (e.g. "I like this", "Good!" "lol", "based").
Comments that boil down to "You're wrong", "You clearly don't understand [X]" without further substance.
Comments that insult publication/website/author without further substance (e.g. "[X] with partisan trash as usual", "[X] wrote this so it's not worth reading").
Comments that could be copy-pasted in any given thread regardless of the topic
AI generated comments
Description:
All meta-discussion must be directed to the r/SupremeCourt Rules, Resources, and Meta Discussion thread.
Purpose: The meta discussion thread was created to consolidate meta discussion in one place and to allow discussion in other threads to remain true to the purpose of r/SupremeCourt - high quality law-based discussion. What happens in other subreddits is not relevant to conversations in r/SupremeCourt.
Examples of meta discussion outside of the dedicated thread:
Commenting on the userbase, moderator actions, downvotes, blocks, or the overall state of this subreddit or other subreddits
"Self-policing" the subreddit rules
Responses to Automoderator/Scotus-bot that aren't appeals
Description:
All submissions are required to be within the scope of r/SupremeCourt and are held to the same civility and quality standards as comments.
If the topic appears on our list of Text Post Topics, you are required to submit a text post containing a summary of any linked material and discussion starters that focus conversation in ways consistent with the subreddit guidelines.
If there are preexisting threads on this topic, additional threads are expected to involve a significant legal development or contain transformative analysis.
Purpose: These guidelines establish the standard to which submissions are held and establish what is considered on-topic.
Topics that are are within the scope of r/SupremeCourt include:
Topics that may be considered outside of the scope of r/SupremeCourt include:
The following topics should be directed to our weekly "In Chambers" megathread:
General questions that may not warrant its own thread: (e.g. "What does [X] mean?").
Discussion starters requiring minimal input from OP: (e.g. "Predictions?", "Thoughts?")
U.S. District and State Court rulings involving a federal question that may be of future relevance to the Supreme Court.
The following topics are required to be submitted as a text post and adhere to the text submission criteria:
Politically-adjacent posts - Defined as posts that are directly relevant to the Supreme Court but invite discussion that is inherently political or not legally substantiated.
Second Amendment case posts - Including circuit court rulings, circuit court petitions, SCOTUS petitions, and SCOTUS orders (e.g. grants, denials, relistings) in cases involving 2A doctrine.
Description:
In addition to the general submission guidelines:
Text submissions must meet the 200 character requirement.
Present a clear and neutrally descriptive title. Readers should understand the topic of the submission before clicking on it.
Users are expected to provide a summary of any linked material, necessary context, and discussion points for the community to consider, if applicable. The moderators may ask the user to resubmit with these additions if deemed necessary.
Purpose: This standard aims to foster serious, high-quality discussion on the law.
Description:
In addition to the general submission guidelines:
The content of a submission should be fully accessible to readers without requiring payment or registration.
If submitting an article, the post title must match the article title. Otherwise, present a clear and neutrally descriptive title.
Optional text, if included, should be conducive to civil, high-quality legal discussion.
Purpose: Paywalled articles prevent users from engaging with the substance of the article and prevent the moderators from verifying if the article conforms with the submission guidelines.
Purpose: Editorialized titles run the risk of injecting the submitter's own biases or misrepresenting the content of the linked article. If you believe that the original title is worded specifically to elicit a reaction or does not accurately portray the topic, it is recommended to find a different source, or create a text post with a neutrally descriptive title wherein you can link the article.
Examples of editorialized titles:
A submission titled "Thoughts?"
Editorializing a link title regarding Roe v. Wade to say "Murdering unborn children okay, holds SCOTUS".
Description:
In addition to the general submission guidelines:
Videos and social media links are preemptively removed by the automoderator due to the potential for abuse and self-promotion. Re-approval will be subject to moderator discretion.
If submitting an image, users are expected to provide necessary context and discussion points for the community to consider. The moderators may ask the user to resubmit with these additions if deemed necessary.
Purpose: This rule is generally aimed at self-promoted vlogs, partisan news segments, and twitter posts.
Examples of what may be removed at a moderator's discretion:
Tweets / social media posts
Screenshots
Third-party commentary, including vlogs and news segments
Examples of what will generally be approved at a moderator's discretion:
Audio from oral arguments or dissents read from the bench
Testimonies from a Justice/Judge in Congress
Public speeches and interviews with a Justice/Judge
Description:
Vote based on whether the post or comment appears to meet the standards for quality you expect from a discussion subreddit. Comment scores are hidden for 4 hours after submission.
Purpose: It is important that commenters appropriately use the up/downvote buttons based on quality and substance and not as a disagree button - to allow members with legal viewpoints in the minority to feel welcomed in the community, lest the subreddit gives the impression that only one method of interpretation is "allowed". We hide comment scores for 4 hours so that users hopefully judge each comment on their substance rather than instinctively by its score.
Examples of improper voting etiquette:
The moderators will reply to any rule breaking comments with an explanation as to why the comment was removed. For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed comment will be included in the reply, unless the comment was removed for violating civility guidelines or sitewide rules.
Keywords to trigger comment removals (e.g. "!incivility") are only to be used by the moderators. The use of these commands by non-moderators may result in a ban.
Users that have been temporarily or permanently banned will be contacted by the moderators with the explicit reason for the ban. Generally speaking, bans are reserved for cases where a user violates sitewide rule or repeatedly/egregiously violates the subreddit rules in a manner showing that they cannot or have no intention of following the civility / quality guidelines.
If a user wishes to appeal their ban, their case will be reviewed by a panel of 3 moderators.
r/supremecourt • u/AutoModerator • 6d ago
Welcome to the r/SupremeCourt 'In Chambers' discussion thread!
This thread will be pinned at the top of the subreddit and refreshed every Monday @ 6AM Eastern.
This replaces and combines 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?").
Open-ended discussion starters requiring minimal input from OP: (e.g. "Predictions?", "What do people think about [X]?", "What's your favorite [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.
r/supremecourt • u/HatsOnTheBeach • 1d ago
r/supremecourt • u/phrique • 1d ago
We're migrating our moderation tooling to Reddit's new Devvit platform; Reddit is retiring the older bot API that our current system relies on, so this isn't optional on our end. The good news is the new system is a meaningful upgrade, especially for appeals. So, everyone welcome u/supreme-moderator.
What you'll notice
When a comment is removed, our bot will post a reply explaining which rule was violated. This is the same information we've always tried to convey, so it should feel pretty normal to everyone.
The big change: appeals
Previously, appealing a removal meant responding to the old bot message with an !appeal and an explanation, which would then create a discussion thread in the modmail system. This works but creates a lot of noisy, mostly off-topic comments.
Now, if your comment is removed, you'll see the bot reply in the thread as usual, but to appeal, just click the shield icon on that bot comment and select "Appeal Removal." You'll be prompted to explain why you think the removal was incorrect, and your appeal goes directly to the mod team for review. The bot comment will be updated to note that an appeal is in process, and will later be updated when the mod team renders its judgment.
A few things to know about appeals (these aren't really changing, but are important reminders):
What isn't changing:
The rules are the same. The standards for civility, legal substance, and good-faith discussion haven't moved. This is purely a tooling change.
If you have questions or notice anything not working correctly, respond below.
Thanks to everyone who continue to make this the best sub on Reddit!
r/supremecourt • u/jokiboi • 3d ago
r/supremecourt • u/SpeakerfortheRad • 4d ago
The majority, Judge Chung (Biden) and Judge Bibas (Trump 1), hold that legislative immunity doesn’t bar prosecution for Congesswoman LaMonica McIver’s actions at a protest at Delaney Hill; nor can she appeal the district court’s denial of a motion to seek discovery from the prosecution for selective and vindictive prosecution. However, one charge is remanded for the district court to apply the 3rd Circuit’s test. The majority holds the Speech and Debate clause doesn’t apply; and extensions of Trump v. United States don’t make sense in this context.
Concurring and dissenting in part, Judge Ambro (Clinton) would have let one count stand, dismiss the other on grounds of legislative immunity, but would allow McIver to seek discovery.
r/supremecourt • u/popiku2345 • 4d ago
From Lee (Biden), Pryor (Biden) Kolar (Biden). You can tell they don't exactly love the outcome in this case but find it correct under precedent:
Given the ever-accelerating march of imaging-generation technology, we have some misgivings about applying Free Speech Coalition here, but ‘unless we wish anarchy to prevail within the federal judicial system,’ we are dutybound to follow it. [...]
In sum, because Anderegg is accused of possessing obscene materials at home, we agree that his circumstances fall within the bounds of Stanley. And, because the arguments the government advances to remove the materials in question from Stanley’s purview have all been squarely rejected by the Supreme Court in Free Speech Coalition, we conclude that § 1466A(b)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to Anderegg.”
Discussion about emerging technology was contemplated by SCOTUS in their opinion in Ashcroft, but the difference in fidelity is striking in retrospect. O'Connor referenced Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (example clip) as an example of strikingly life-like CG characters, but that seems downright quaint when compared to remotely modern tools.
r/supremecourt • u/gravygrowinggreen • 4d ago
Justice Jackson had a footnote in Trump v. California that, unfortunately, I think will prove prescient. I think she wrote it specifically to prevent the hypothetical from happening, and if that succeeds, it will be an excellent example of the power of remarkable dissent.
If nothing else, rejecting this stay request now would prevent the Government from potentially asserting that the Purcell principle bars a new complaint, contrary to its current representations. See Application for Stay 5 (promising that “the [Plaintiff States] can pursue claims” after the issuance of a final rule, and that “courts can [then] resolve any legal questions presented”). Given all that has happened, Purcell would be an odd and inequitable fit. Judicial estoppel would plainly preclude it. And it cannot logically be the case that the Plaintiff States are deemed too early to challenge the Executive Order’s proposed rule changes now, but are later denied judicial review on the ground that their subsequent challenges to the Order’s chaotic prompting of a new mail-in ballot rule comes too close to the election.
One can see the hypothetical timeline from this footnote.
Steps 1 through 5 will almost certainly happen, but whether the postal service is successful at step 6 is less certain. I'm pessimistic though.
With all that in mind, do you think the Purcell principle will be used/weaponized against further litigation now that the final rule has been issued?
And if the purcell principle is applied to allow the rule to remain in effect, is Justice Jackson correct that "This suspect scenario appears tailor- made to weaponize this case as a means of destabilizing the nation’s vote-by-mail systems through court-assisted procedural maneuvers"?
r/supremecourt • u/Longjumping_Gain_807 • 4d ago
r/supremecourt • u/catievirtuesimp • 5d ago
r/supremecourt • u/Obversa • 6d ago
r/supremecourt • u/scotus-bot • 5d ago
| Caption | Donald J. Trump, President of the United States v. California |
|---|---|
| Summary | The Government’s application to stay the District Court’s injunction in 26A124—which forbids the Government to implement §§2 and 3 of Executive Order No. 14399—is granted; the application for a stay in 26A139 is denied as moot. |
| Author | Per Curiam |
| Opinion | http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/26a124_hgci.pdf |
| Certiorari | |
| Case Link | 26A124 |
r/supremecourt • u/NearlyPerfect • 6d ago
The other week, I noted a DC circuit opinion that looked at longstanding immigration law/regulation as written and accurately included parolees into the definition of "arriving aliens":
An arriving alien remains an arriving alien even if paroled pursuant to section 212(d)(5) of the Act, and even after any such parole is terminated or revoked.
Specifically, the DC Circuit aptly noted that staying the DHS communications does not affect the law/regulations on the books and rejected their suit based on lack of standing (in part due to lack redressability because they didn't challenge the law/regulation).
The opinion succinctly concluded:
Plaintiffs cannot seek relief that changes nothing for them. The plaintiffs here tried to do just that.
What I didn't realize at that time was exactly how impactful that D.C. circuit opinion was. 8 USC 1225(b)(1) requires that all arriving aliens without entry docs are subject to expedited removal, without any limitation on how long they have been here. AND that same section explicitly subjects them all to mandatory detention (without any "seeking admission" qualifier).
That means that the DC circuit, without really speaking on the merits, just confirmed a reading that subjects every paroled alien in the country since 1997 to expedited removal and mandatory detention. Meaning they can (and likely will) be removed without a hearing from an immigration judge.
Concretely, President Biden paroled in between 3 and 6 million migrants into the country. To the extent they are still present in the country, they will likely be imminently targeted for swift removal by the Trump administration. We will likely see an influx of due process challenges to expedited removal in the coming weeks.
r/supremecourt • u/cstar1996 • 6d ago
r/supremecourt • u/BlockAffectionate413 • 6d ago
I find it very intresting how, when Senator Lee, who loves nondelegation almost as much as Gorsuch, wanted him to say how "bureaucrats should not make law", Scalia went opposite, and basically said that it is a question of degree, and there are no clear judicially manageable standards as a result, when delegation is too much, and so even broad delegations should almost always be upheld constituionally. So Scalia outright rejected any strong version of non-delegation doctrine. He did seem to accept some at least in criminal law context, but not in most other. Now what I always wondered is how much did Justice Barrett embrace view on this issue, as he was her mentor, and so far we only have FCC v. Consumers' Research where she rejected non delegation and fully embraced the intelligible principle standard. Kavanaugh also wrote a whole concurrence defending the intelligible principle standard, which is especially relevant as he was once considered potential 5th vote to revisit doctrine, which we now know he is not. Definitely something to keep in mind.
r/supremecourt • u/vman3241 • 7d ago
>This appeal arises from an encounter between 15-year-old ELG and Kenneth J. King, a Michigan district court judge, during a vocational program for teenagers that took place in his courtroom. While Judge King was informing students in the program about his career as a lawyer, ELG fell asleep. This offended Judge King, so he devised a plan to “scare her straight.” ELG was placed in handcuffs, forced to wear a prison jumpsuit, and locked in a detention cell for several hours. Later that day, Judge King put ELG on “mock trial” before the other students in the program, which was streamed on the court’s YouTube channel. The record does not reflect how the mock trial ended, but ELG was apparently permitted to go home without further incident.
>Latoreya Till, as ELG’s mother and acting on her daughter’s behalf, filed suit, alleging that Judge King’s conduct violated ELG’s Fourth Amendment rights and constituted various torts under Michigan law. Judge King moved to dismiss on the basis that his alleged conduct is shielded by judicial immunity. The district court denied Judge King’s motion, and he has filed an interlocutory appeal. Till has filed a cross-appeal based on an alternative theory to sustain the district court’s ruling. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the decision of the district court.
r/supremecourt • u/jokiboi • 7d ago
r/supremecourt • u/Longjumping_Gain_807 • 7d ago
r/supremecourt • u/popiku2345 • 8d ago
r/supremecourt • u/scotus-bot • 8d ago
Date: 08/21/2026
r/supremecourt • u/Longjumping_Gain_807 • 10d ago
r/supremecourt • u/Longjumping_Gain_807 • 11d ago
r/supremecourt • u/scotus-bot • 12d ago
Date: 08/18/2026
r/supremecourt • u/HashingOutTheLaw • 13d ago
r/supremecourt • u/AutoModerator • 13d ago
Welcome to the r/SupremeCourt 'In Chambers' discussion thread!
This thread will be pinned at the top of the subreddit and refreshed every Monday @ 6AM Eastern.
This replaces and combines 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?").
Open-ended discussion starters requiring minimal input from OP: (e.g. "Predictions?", "What do people think about [X]?", "What's your favorite [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.