13 March 2025
Die Judikative in der Herrschaft des Bullshits
Die politische Situation in den Vereinigten Staaten hat ihren Siedepunkt noch nicht erreicht. Jede Eskalation scheint bloße Etappe, jede Etappe wiederum von flüchtigster Dauer. Die New York Times hat einen Liveticker für den in toto akuten Vorgang namens Trump-Administration eingerichtet, der die Demontage des Staates immer etwas atemlos protokolliert. Entlang einer von langer Hand vorbereiteten Strategie („Project 2025“) lässt sich der konfuse Furor nicht mehr nachvollziehen und auch das liberale Schreckgespenst der frühestens seit Reagan, spätestens seit G. W. Bush im republikanischen Ideenreservoir befindlichen unitary executive theory verspricht keinen spezifischen Erkenntnisgewinn. Die konkrete Lage nötigt andere Beschreibungen ab. Continue reading >>
0 
29 January 2025
TikTok’s last dance
“On January 19, we still have President Biden, and on January 19, as I understand it, we shut down.” With these words—foreshadowing the final ban of the TikTok app in the United States—Noel Francisco, legal representative of ByteDance, the Chinese parent company, addressed the U.S. Supreme Court during oral arguments on January 10, 2025. One week later, the Supreme Court issued its ruling: TikTok’s appeal was dismissed. The court’s reasoning merits examination, while the implications remain uncertain, particularly as a Trump executive order temporarily blocks the ban’s enforcement. Continue reading >>
0
06 August 2024
A Setback for Homeless Rights in the United States
On June 28, 2024, the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson (Grants Pass), its most significant case on homelessness in decades. The decision overturned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal’s 2018 decision in Martin v. Boise (Martin), which mandated that cities allow unhoused individuals to sleep in public spaces when shelter beds were not available. The decision fails to consider the root causes of homelessness in the United States and exacerbates the already fragmented regulatory landscape governing the vulnerable community of the unhoused. Continue reading >>
0
11 July 2024
Online Speech at the US Supreme Court in Moody v. Netchoice
The First Amendment of the US Constitution raises some of the most difficult legal hurdles for regulating the global digital public sphere today. In Moody v. Netchoice, the US Supreme Court heard appeals from two judgments, an appeal from a decision of the Fifth Circuit declaring that Texas’ social media law H.B. 20 did not violate the First Amendment, and an appeal from a decision of the Eleventh Circuit finding Florida’s social media law S.B. 7072, instead, unconstitutional. These laws are similar in that they both attempt to impose must-carry and non-discrimination obligations on social media platforms, which in practice amounts to requiring them not to discriminate against conservative users’ posts. The compatibility of these two laws with the First Amendment cuts across a plethora of crucial issues on the future of social media regulation which the court could, but didn’t fully, address. Continue reading >>
0
04 July 2024
The Supreme Court v. the Administrative State II
The outlook is not rosy for Democrats, neither politically nor in court. Democrats’ hopes that President Biden – who, according to some polls, is trailing Trump in all seven swing states – could turn the odds in his favor in an early debate have been dashed by his disastrous performance. To add insult to injury, in three 6-to-3 rulings along ideological lines, the Supreme Court further reigned in on administrative agencies, putting Biden’s regulatory agenda at risk. The most far-reaching of these decisions is, undoubtedly, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. This case marked a milestone for the conservative legal movement’s fight against the administrative state. Continue reading >>04 July 2024
Rethinking the History & Tradition Approach
In a landmark 8-1 decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Rahimi that the federal government has the authority to disarm individuals deemed by courts to be credible threats to their partners or children, consistent with the Second Amendment. This ruling marks a significant shift from the Court's previous stance in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), which had established a stringent history and tradition test for evaluating gun regulations that undermined key tenets of the rule of law – clarity, consistency, and predictability. Continue reading >>03 July 2024
Ein König zum Unabhängigkeitstag
Der U.S.-amerikanische Supreme Court hat entschieden, dass offizielle Amtshandlungen von Präsidenten Immunität genießen. Anlass war das Verfahren gegen Donald Trump, der sich wegen seiner Beteiligung am versuchten Aufstand vom 6. Januar 2021 vor einem Gericht verantworten muss. Die Entscheidung ist ein voller Erfolg für Trump und wird nicht nur weitere Strafverfahren beeinflussen, sondern auch über den aktuellen Fall hinaus weitreichende Konsequenzen zeitigen. Der Supreme Court hat den USA in der Woche des 248. Unabhängigkeitstages einen neuen König geschenkt. Continue reading >>
0
19 February 2024
Trump’s Trials for Democracy
It is hard to imagine a stable democracy having to confront the legal challenges presented by Donald Trump’s bid for reelection. Courts have found him to be responsible for sexual assault, defamation and fraud, all in relatively quick succession. Taken together with repeated acts of demagogy and cruelty, the various legal proceedings reinforce the sense that Trump simply does not belong within the bounds of legitimate democratic contestation. But the charges against him thus far are civil claims that have no formal bearing on his bid for office. Nor do they seem to affect public opinion as the polarized electoral environment has little intermediate play that might be swayed by scandal, legal condemnation, or even the sense that enough is enough. Continue reading >>09 July 2023
Harvard’s Diversity Chicken Comes Home to Roost
The US Supreme Court's decision in Students for Fair Admission is a potential blessing. Diversity was always a problematic justification for race-based admissions programs. Diversity's origins are anti-Semitic. More likely, however, the decision will be a curse. The United States Supreme Court has made the pathway for disadvantaged minorities more difficult. Continue reading >>03 July 2023