Public sentiment towards the Supreme Court is deeply polarized, with significant numbers expressing strong dissatisfaction over perceived corruption, political bias, and judicial overreach, while others show support for specific rulings, particularly regarding immigration enforcement and the protection of marginalized communities. Calls for reform and balanced justice are prevalent across varying opinions, reflecting widespread frustration and anxiety about the Court's role in upholding constitutional rights.

Supreme Court Justices

Political Advocates for Judicial Reform

A quick PSA for the posters in this thread, from a member of the moderation staff.

This ruling was on a temporary restraining order while the immigration cases go through the court system, *not* on the validity of those cases themselves. For better or worse - by which I mean worse - this court has been very hostile to temporary restraining orders. We have known this. This is not new.

Not every case the Supreme Court hears goes Trump's way. They ruled unanimously that Trump was required to bring back Kilmar Abrego Garcia. We know this. This is not new.

Their ruling here has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on age verification, Obergefell, or literally anything other than the TRO at hand.

And lastly, *your posts have an effect on other people.* Think before you doom or go off on panic-spamming screeds in the comments. Be considerate of other people, for your sake, the sake of others in the sub, and the sake of the moderators who have to remove your dooming.

Collectively: please, God, everyone take a breath. You're allowed to be upset, but this thread is not your venting journal or your group therapy meeting.

SuspectLegitimate751

On the immigration ruling one, it’s not good and not going to say that it is, but this is another case of SCOTUS digging more of their own holes by essentially lifting the lower court’s restraining order while this lawsuit is still being battled out and moving up the courts. Check out Amanda’s Mild Takes’s IG story on it as she explains it better but this seems to be more “yeah the lower courts are wrong about this one very specific thing so the lawsuits will still continue and we will likely have to rule on the actual case at some point”.

EDIT: I was referencing a story Amanda made where she said what the ruling was, not a reel she made separately that, in my opinion, had a very doomery take after she explained the ruling that I find to be speculative. Please take any creator with their speculation with a grain of salt.

anxious_dork_23



Can we have a pin post that lists all of our victories compared to theirs? 

Remember guys, we had a streak of victories. They had theirs today. This is part of the good fight. So far we have been amassing a lot of victories that will accumulate into a force to be reckoned with. But this is going to be happening for 3 more years. 

We have other variables to contend with and they are in our favor.

SCOTUS is butt hurt and always brings up to people to have trust in them. But that’s been brought up 72/11. It’s getting to them, the pressure. Also they love their power hence they will retrain Trump on some things. But they feel the heat, it’s growing, so keep it up.  


The process of a slow wake up is now picking  up speed. 

Bi partisan call out on cancel culture 

Target submitted to the will of the people after 8 months of boycotting.

Academic institutes lead by Harvard are winning. The more they win the more they can develop a plan for public universities to fight back. 

Colbert and South Park aren’t going anywhere. Now Paramount is stuck looking like a half of jerk off, half of nothing.

Moral of the military is low, anger is growing. That’s a great sign.

ICE is melting, they’re added and can’t find a lot of people. Even cops are pissed because they’re tying to take their cops. 

We need to celebrate Sandwich man and the brave tow truck driver. Brave souls who not only brought laughter, but put their life on the line to inspire us to say fuck you and make ICE even more scared. We don’t put up with bullies. That’s what Ryssä do.

Trumps health. He’s trying to weaponize it. Don’t buy into fear mongering. In other words don’t feed the trolls. We know what’s up. So now we let time do its job. And also because we’re not savages. 


Let’s pick ourselves up and use our zeal to win more. And we will win.

stonedbadger1718

Goodness gracious, first the US is back to square one with Slaughter’s firing, &amp; now Trump is asking the court to let his administration to withhold more than $4bn (£3bn) in foreign aid! I tell ya, it’s bound to give us all a headache!

Sooner than later, the SC will later crack and turn on Trump over his blackmails!

BrenTheNewFan

The ruling on immigration is upsetting, but expected. Hopefully it's just them giving him a temporary win to keep him from whining before ultimately ruling against him, but I'm not holding my breath. It's unfortunate since things had gotten a little better here in LA, but with ICE being spread thin and the growing disapproval of them and their methods, I'm hoping things won't be nearly as bad as they were in June.

Strange-Squirrel6492

I would like to thank the mods for their pinned comment. I'm not going to give any hot takes here.

BonnieSlaysVampires

These rulings already has me worried sick thinking SCOTUS is going to give Trump the go ahead to use his tariffs, especially with the FTC commissioner firing. Any optimism here? Because I’ve been spiraling for the last hour or so thinking the worst case scenario.

IAmArique

Let me make sure I'm understanding what is going on here:


While this is a disappointment, it really means that this case has opened again and no ruling is final? Is that what this means?


Sorry, just a little confused. Please point me in the right direction. 

Which_Shift_7242

bro this subreddit is genuinely saving my mental health

das_weinermeister

The Supreme Court isn’t as powerful as trump
Thinks. They can’t say “trump can do this, cry about it” their rulings are temporary at best and a slog at worst. They still have a constitution they have to follow and can’t break it less they wanna get hit with a lawsuit. They aren’t our kryptonite, a set back yes, but no utter defeat.

Ilovemiia1

So yeah what the end there said, they aren’t ruling the on the constitutionality of either of those things, they’re simply saying this was a wrong way to go about the procedure of challenging it.

They’re basically saying that the federal judge ruled it unlawful, trump immediately went to scotus over both things, and scotus was like “a*shole, you needed to go to appeals first before us, we’ll let this stand and keep going until appeals says something” 

Now I wholeheartedly agree with the liberal justices that it shouldn’t matter what lower court procedural things are, they should have shot this sh*t fully down right here on both cases rather than say they made court path errors, but apparently these two things, along with the actual constitutionality of the birthright citizenship EO are going to be major cases of the 2025-2026 scotus term, and Amy Coney Barrett said in her cbs interview that they’re at scotus expecting the birthright citizenship EO’s actual constitutionality to come back to them as a case for the 2025-26 term.

But again, I’ll side with the liberal justices on this, take the opportunity to FULLY SHUT THIS SH*T DOWN RIGHT AWAY, who cares what court following it went through!!! The birthright citizenship EO case was a horrible case to strike down nationwide injunctions if you wanted to do that, as it now allows the executive branch to rule by executive fiat and , while they can still be stopped through class action lawsuit injunctions as we have seen, it makes it harder to stop the executive.

Amy coney Barrett, while I would love to maybe learn more of their perspective on this, said that one should balance out worries of an imperial judiciary with an imperial executive, in response to the liberals’ worry about giving too much power to the executive, but I’d also buy the argument that Justice Elena Kagan brought when they were doing the nationwide injunction case earlier this year: 

A future democratic president could sign an EO for the FBI and state police to collect any and all guns that people privately own throughout the entire nation, and then without nationwide injunctions or allowing things to proceed due to technicalities in court procedures, it would make judges not be able to stop a clear gross violation of the second amendment in time, and make things way slower.

I mean it’s whatever if they want to change technicalities for lower court rulings and let things continue until done through the full court procedure until they reach scotus again, but I would opt for stopping, for example, that ICE raid racial targeting and letting it go through appeals without fully ruling on the constitutionality of it, rather than letting it continue before it gets back to scotus. 

Neat_Ant2973

I’m not gonna lie this is kinda making me spiral. It makes me wonder what else the Supreme Court can do and say that will put us at a disadvantage. I don’t want to doom but I would also like optimism on this matter.

insane677

[deleted]

Something I’m having a hard time figuring out is that did all of this only apply to LA? Was the restraining order for just LA or was it nationwide? 

NOVA27C

All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. **FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.**

*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/law) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

The Heritage Foundation that's what happened they have placed their cronies where they need to be, know your enemy

LeafsJays1Fan

Leonard Leo stacked the Supreme Court, as well as many conservative federal judges across the country. Collectively, they are known as the Federalist Society. The conservative jurists on the Supreme Court were vetted by Leo before they even became candidates. They are pursuing a christofascist agenda, and trump is helping them carry out that agenda.

charcoalist

Jesus happened. And Orange Jesus. And lots of open bribery without consequence. 

Turns out they no longer want a democracy. Oligarchy or theocracy is their target.

iZoooom

MisterProfGuy

This coup d’etat has been long planned. In other words, this is not just Trump. Dumping him will not get us out of this mess.

Then_Journalist_317

What happened?

Four decades of gradually planting right-wing religious fascists in the Court.  It wasn't easy but that's a long time in which to operate.  Eventually they succeeded.

How did they succeed?  Well, here is what happened:

"Hey, look, someone is trying to plant right-wing religious fascists in the Supreme Court!  We should stop them."

"But both sides."

"What does that mean?  Have you seen the right-wing religious fascists being nominated into the Court?"

"But both sides."

"So you're not going to —"

"Both sides."

"Are you incapable of saying anything other th—"

"Both sides."

"But —"

"Both sides."

"D—"

"Both sides."

amitym

SnoopingStuff

The Republican Party stopped being a party and is now a cult. They are members of the cult.

CalagaxT

They are bought and paid for to rubber stamp whatever’s clever.

49thDipper

You missed the 6/3 Trump flunkee to normal ratio ?

Not to go full Marxist, but I will say that the conception of the judicial system as a component of the repressive state apparatus has been feeling pretty convincing lately.

seven_corpse_dinner

Short answer: it’s not “almost unanimous on nearly every case,” but the court has made a string of moves this term that functionally help the administration—often on procedural grounds and often through the emergency (“shadow”) docket.

What the numbers say
This term’s unanimity rate is about 42%—high, but not “nearly every case.” The Chief has steered a lot of narrow, technical rulings that draw broad agreement. On the big, salient fights, splits remain. 

Why it can look like near-uniform wins for the White House

Presidential immunity: In Trump v. United States (2024) the Court created absolute immunity for “core” official acts and presumptive immunity for other official acts. That’s a major expansion of executive protection and shapes many downstream cases. 

Limiting nationwide injunctions: In Trump v. CASA (2025), the Court stayed universal (nationwide) injunctions against the administration’s birthright-citizenship EO—without ruling on the EO’s merits—so the policy could operate against non-plaintiffs while litigation continues. That procedural move repeatedly benefits the executive. (There were sharp dissents noting lower courts had deemed the EO likely unconstitutional.) 

Emergency docket deference: In Trump v. J.G.G. (2025), the Court, on the shadow docket, vacated a trial court’s TRO that had paused removals under the Alien Enemies Act, reframing the fight as a venue/procedure question (use habeas where detainees are held). The dissents warned the Court was green-lighting rapid removals and making new law without full briefing. 


Put together, these choices (immunity, narrowing remedies against the executive, speed via emergency orders) create the impression of a Court “siding with” the administration. SCOTUSblog’s term review sums it up: the 2024–25 term delivered notable wins for the conservative majority and the Trump administration. 

“Contempt for the laws”?
That’s the dissents’ critique: several justices argue the majority is reshaping big questions on the shadow docket, truncating process, and weakening traditional checks (e.g., broad injunctions) against unlawful executive action. You can see that language in the J.G.G. and CASA dissents. Supporters counter that the Court is reining in overbroad lower-court remedies and clarifying separation of powers. 

Bottom line

It isn’t blanket unanimity.

But key rulings (and how the Court uses procedure) have tilted the field toward the executive, which is why it looks like near-automatic wins in high-profile disputes this year. If you want to track this in real time, watch the emergency-docket orders and how often they let policies take effect while merits cases drag on.

vanceavalon

It’s a coup. It’s been a coup for decades

eat_my_ass_n_balls

traitors.  

they betray their Oaths and lied during their confirmations, 

they betrayed their Oath and lied for having overturned Roe v. Wade.

they betray this country.

dojo_shlom0

They’ve broken faith in the system, which will cost this country dearly…..they just don’t know it yet, or naively think they are shielded from it. 

Don’t take my word for it, take history’s. These things are cyclical.

Cojo85

They’re corrupt and immune to accountability.

Utterlybored

What is confusion? The Supreme Court is bought and paid for.  

We know longer have rule of law as we knew it, and the courts are going to implode.

Princess_Actual

Inspect1234

There are no laws anymore, beyond those dictated by the dictator.

xandra77mimic

3 of the justices on the court helped steal the election in 2000 for Bush. That's all you need to know.

FlaccidEggroll

It's been infected by Christian conservatives. It's utterly illegitimate given they are blatantly partisan and their rulings.

T1Pimp

Money? Blackmail? Bitterness? Revenge? Retaliation? Indifference?

Herban_Myth

Lebojr

You should’ve filed with small claims first you would’ve gotten your account back by now. Good luck  

Just-Nectarine-250

1.	I’m truly sorry you’re going through this. The way Meta treats its users can be incredibly unjust, and no one deserves to be left without support or answers.

2.	While the case you’re referring to is from New York, it is not the controlling precedent. The current binding authority is Calise v. Meta Platforms, Inc., decided on June 4, 2024, by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In that decision, the court held that breach of contract claims are not preempted by Section 230. That would have been the strongest legal basis for pursuing litigation in your case. (Small claims or a higher court)

3.	Emotional distress claims always come last as they are generally harder to prove. But not impossible.

No_Vegetable1808

Thanks for this post, 

Everyone should take a note, you not always going to be win win 🥇 always be prepared when you file legal actions against someone, well sorry you were denied, hope you find a way

borntowin68

This is NOT US Supreme Court, this would be NY State court, and NY is the only state where their Supreme Court is not the court of last resort.  The Supreme Court is their standard state and county court system.  The NY Court of Appeals is their last resort court.

-dakpluto-

Why did you do this instead of small claims-were you looking to make money?

Valuable_Steak183

When you filed your small Claims what address did you use for meta?

Full_Bookkeeper1146

Does going to small claims court really help to get the account back? Is it guaranteed? I’m planning to go because I was wrongly accused of CS (it was originally CSE, but I also have a screenshot of the first accusation). I’m from Brazil

LeNinjaBranca

&gt;If they can shut down someone's digital identity without cause or explanation,

  
You don't have a right to use Meta to post and to speak. Private company.

StraightedgexLiberal

Tall-Mechanic7526

duprade

That’s why you should boycott meta products ❗️

_toretto

This update saddens me. All the while I thought being located in the US has the best advantage because you have better justice system there. 

What hope is now waiting for us Asians who were falsely disabled by this Meta AI going rouge? My account of 16 years full of memories, friends, business contacts and on-call staff are now gone. Meta also cut-off the support group of my autistic son which is more devastating to think as a mother. 

Please keep us posted bro. There are so many people wrongfully accused. So inhumane. 😔

snowhepburn

Typical-Data-1581

We should absolutely not be joining the class action. It's going to set precedent and then we won't be able to use small claims anymore.

TrainDonutBBQ

You are literally doing us a negative favour here, glad I'm not American

Academic_Homework_23

"The court granted a request by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of nationwide injunctions imposed by judges so that they apply only to states, groups and individuals that sued."

  
Does this mean ANY previous nationwide injunction on old cases (say Biden policies) are now invalid?

Able_Conflict_1721

Maybe I’m not fully understanding the ramifications of it, but a federal judge’s power to rule an EO unconstitutional is now limited jurisdictionally? Doesn’t that basically mean different “interpretations” of the constitution apply nationwide?

That’s not much of a constitution in my eyes if it can now be bended that easily…

Professional-Cry8310

Curious how something can be unconstitutional in New York but constitutional in Kansas

mlorusso4

Funny how the GOP didn’t have any problem with it when it was just a single judge in TX stopping the Biden Administration from getting anything done.

Sirwired

Really though, what's next? The GOP's been gunning for this forever... New Hampshire holding out is a tiny silver lining but we're stuck playing whack-a-mole.

Tremenda-Carucha

Everyone is focusing on the states, but doesn't order also limit to the individuals who sued?

"In a 6-3 vote, the court granted a request by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of nationwide injunctions imposed by judges so that they apply only to states, groups and individuals that sued."

So, if the government decides, "Hey, let's take away all of the guns."  You can sue to not have your guns taken away...  And get an injunction that applies to you.  But it doesn't apply to anyone else and you can just take away guns from anyone who doesn't want to run a court case up to the Supreme Court on their dime.

If they decide, "Vaccines are mandatory."  Better have a lawyer and a lot of money. 

It doesn't take a genius to see that this doesn't scale to a functional form of government.

Simpicity

Best way to get the point across to conservative friends:  I can appreciate the CivPro concerns about universal injunctions. But even if there is a strong argument for curtailing them, surely they should be appropriate where there are flagrant blatant violations of the Constitution. If through executive order or Congressional law, there was a complete ban on gun ownership… And “blue states” did not challenge the law —- that means that the total ban on gun ownership in blatant violation of the 2nd Amendment would be enforceable in blue states for the 1-3 years it takes for the full case to reach the Supreme Court… (stolen from SCOTUS Blog)

iliveattheoffice

This is bonkers, even as the conservative radical courts have been the worst offenders in this regard (mostly plaintiffs filing in a tiny town in Texas in order to guarantee Judge Kacsmaryck).  It creates a Balkanization of law where parallel challenges have to be filed in eleven different places in order to halt facially illegal policies, which imposes additional costs on the plaintiffs.  Plus, if the admin really wants to fuck around, they can take the L on an injunction in, say, the Eleventh, and not appeal that so that they keep a policy in place in the rest of the country.  The plaintiffs have to go to an unfriendly court, lose, and *then* appeal to SCOTUS.

Hot garbage decision.

RSquared

Bunch of fucking cowards. Instead of declaring that the order violated the Constitution, they attacked the process.

arlondiluthel

&gt;When a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too," Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority.

&gt;But she indicated that the nationwide injunctions are limited "only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary."

&gt;Lower courts, she added "shall move expeditiously" to figure out how broad the injunctions can be.

Translation: We're making new Calvinball rules.  And the rule (although we won't say so openly, yet) is that a nationwide injunction against a Republican administration will be prevented, while one from their pet judge in Texas will be allowed.

kandoras

We no longer live in a functioning democracy when our highest court allows the executive to simply ignore the plain text of the Constitution.

jimbo831

Originalism Calvinball: whether or not the EPA can regulate carbon emissions is a "major question," but the President ending people's right to citizenship is cool nbd

Hrekires

Let’s be honest, the rule of law is dead in America.

n0neOfConsequence

History students will read about this time the same way read about the 1800's prior to 1864.

This will allow for different federal law depending on where you live, and you can only sue if you can afford it. Almost like this will hit poor people the hardest.

bigredm88

LadyTalah

&gt; In a 6-3 vote, the court granted a request by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of nationwide injunctions imposed by judges so that they apply only to states, groups and individuals that sued. That means the birthright citizenship proposal can likely move forward at least in part in the states that challenged it as well as those that did not

Ahhh look, the ole 6-3 vote where all conservatives vote against the constitution and all liberals vote for it. 

I’m so fucking sick of this timeline.

JerryDipotosBurner

Odd_Lobster4195

Might as well just throw out the Constitution at this point. The right wing judges don't even care anymore

bartz824

I dont think people realize just how awful this is. We as a country have literally just lost one of the last major aspects of judicial review left. Like, this is it.

darkntender

So now rights just depend on your zip code? Cool cool totally normal country.

ppppie_

Haven't seen enough comments yet about how this will effectively, over the next few months/years, bring about countless scenarios where something is deemed unconstitutional in one state and constitutional in another. 

And when New York declares, say, birthright citizenship is constitutional but ICE and the feds come in to deport birthright citizens, it could be the spark that sends us down the road of civil war and Balkanization. Though, I guess we're already dancing that line with ICE snatching citizens off the street and Marines deployed to protests. It's just a matter of which spark finally catches fire.

hammer_it_out

So a Democratic president can now issue an EO to seize guns and no judge can issue an immediate nationwide injunction against it?

VR_Raccoonteur

What was left of the American Republic ended today. Will there be a Gibbon a thousand years from now to chronicle its fall?

jaded-navy-nuke

So does this mean SAVE is back for student loan repayments ?

maccabird

So everyone born in the United States now has to file a lawsuit to stay deportation?

bornlasttuesday

No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates. Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from lawabiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship. The majority holds that, absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief. That holding renders constitutional guarantees meaningful in name only for any individuals who are not parties to a lawsuit. Because I will not be complicit in so grave an attack on our system of law, I dissent.

Justice Sotomayor

trailerparknoize

gu_doc

This is the way democracy ends. Not with a bang but with a whimper. Judicial branch ruled that it can’t check executive power. We’re now a country controlled de facto by one man.

GoBravesGo



"The court granted a request by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of nationwide injunctions imposed by judges so that they apply only to states, groups and individuals that sued."


This dovetails nicely with the executive order to force everyone who sues the government to put millions of dollars in escrow before filing the lawsuit. https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-directs-government-ask-bond-lawsuits-challenging-policies-2025-03-07/

you-create-energy

Not quite as bad as SCOTUS saying "what the constitution says doesn't actually mean that"

....but it's close

gth829c

I assume this absolves the regime from responsibility for the recently leaked orders to employees to ignore court orders.

tmzspn

He hasn’t even been in office for a year. Wow we’re screwed

BummFoot

That Schoolhouse Rock episode about three branches of government checking each other was a complete fabrication.

dustonomo

Does this mean president AOC can now ban guns by EO?

braaibros

What a despicable country US has become. 
Despicable people in charge of a neonazi socio-political ideology. Shame!

rindru

This is the worst Supreme Court we’ve since the one right before the Civil War. These are the kind of feckless cowards that would allow the most evil shit to go through and be interpreted. Roberts is a farce of a man. I hope he has no legacy.

ArtooFeva

"“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,” the amendment says. Based on historical practice, the only exception is people who are the children of diplomats."

Aside from the jurisdiction issue, this language seems to be iron tight. In fact, I do not understand why there is wiggle room for children of diplomats. The amendment says "born ... in the United States". Unless the delivery is done in an embassy, which can be construed as land belonging to another country, the clause applies. So if a diplomat gives birth in a US hospital, this language clearly applies. So why the exception?

NyriasNeo

Ok don’t Donald and ALL his children except Tiffany fall under this or am I imagining things

Cjkgh

So FEDERAL judges are unable to issue injunctions at a FEDERAL level? Are they just regional judges now? I guess I have to roll the dice on if I will be subjected to any unconstitutional bullshit?

fishinfool4

They blocked Obama for appointing a new Supreme Court Justice then trump put in 2. As much as I love RBG, she should have stepped down when she had a chance.

jonjawnjahnsss

“In a 6-3 vote, the court granted a request by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of nationwide injunctions imposed by judges so that they apply only to states, groups and individuals that sued.”

The 14th amendment applies nationwide, not only to states that sued. What this Supreme Court is saying is constitutional rights are only guaranteed to those who sue, which is fucking bullshit.

Rogue_AI_Construct

There's going to be more rulings like this today unfortunately. 

So I guess the constitution means absolutely nothing now. Fair play

coolon23

A daily round-up of reports from the Supreme Court, providing insights into key decisions that impact various aspects of American life.

Supreme Court Updates

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want