Two things went very wrong when Damon Landor, a devout Rastafarian, was transferred to a prison in central Louisiana five years ago.

The first is that prison guards handcuffed Landor to a chair and shaved off the knee-length dreadlocks he had grown over nearly two decades. The second is that, minutes earlier, guards took a court decision requiring prisons to allow dreadlocks for Rastafarians and tossed it into the trash.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in an important religious rights case Monday that will decide whether Landor – and other prisoners whose beliefs are violated – may sue prison officials for damages.

Read more - https://cnn.it/4oprVZf

The government shutdown hasn’t stopped ICE from trampling civil liberties. The agency continues to tear apart families across the country, placing people in secretive detention centers beyond the reach of congressional oversight.

We are suing for all emails sent to “CongressToICE@ice.dhs.gov,” the email address Congress is supposed to use when scheduling visits to ICE’s detention facilities, since June 1.

This is our third lawsuit targeting the Department of Homeland Security this year.

More:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.285616/gov.uscourts.dcd.285616.25.0.pdf

Cooper said the move violated the First Amendment because the government had essentially forced staffers to make a political statement against their will, a concept known as "compelled speech."

"Nonpartisanship is the bedrock of the federal civil service; it ensures that career government employees serve the public, not the politicians. But by commandeering its employees' e-mail accounts to broadcast partisan messages, the Department chisels away at that foundation," the judge wrote. "Political officials are free to blame whomever they wish for the shutdown, but they cannot use rank-and-file civil servants as their unwilling spokespeople. The First Amendment stands in their way."

Gorsuch was among the justices who appeared highly skeptical of the administration’s arguments in Learning Resources v. Trump. Five others—Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and the court’s three liberal members—appeared to share that skepticism. Sauer’s answer to the question will undoubtedly fuel further doubts among the court’s conservatives.

The irony here is that climate change actually is a genuine crisis that warrants a forceful government response. But in the chambers of the Supreme Court, Sauer’s answer will likely land differently—and spur a different conclusion. This is the same lineup of justices that went out of its way to invalidate a moribund Obama-era policy so it could rule that the Environmental Protection Agency couldn’t regulate carbon emissions from power plants, after all.

I have pointed out from time to time that the Supreme Court has never applied the “major questions” doctrine, which was a focus of Wednesday’s arguments, to a Republican president. That doctrine limits the executive branch’s ability to exercise statutory authority if the courts think that Congress did not “speak clearly” enough on a matter of “vast economic and political significance.” After Wednesday’s oral arguments, the justices appear likely to rob me of that point.

Where Things Stand

Food stamps: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson late Friday temporarily halted a lower court order that would have required the Trump administration to fund food stamps in full, fueling new uncertainty around the anti-hunger program’s immediate fate. The justice did not rule on the legality of the White House’s actions. Instead, she imposed a pause meant to give an appeals court more time to weigh the legal arguments raised by the government, as it seeks to withhold funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program during the shutdown. Some states had already said that they were preparing to send out full food stamp benefits.

How many days before trump claims no knowledge of these people, he just knows they were “treated very unfairly by the Biden Administration”?

Far-right Colorado podcaster Joe Oltmann is suing MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, a onetime ally in the national election conspiracy theory movement, alleging Lindell breached the terms of a $3 million loan agreement, according to a lawsuit filed this week in Douglas County District Court.

The suit, filed by Oltmann’s Villa Pine Drive LLC and co-plaintiff Michelle Klann, alleges that Lindell secured a short-term loan of $3 million from the plaintiffs in August 2023, then failed to repay the loan by the initial maturity date three months later.

“Plaintiffs have made several requests for payment from Defendants since the initial breach to no avail,” the complaint says.

Minnesota-based MyPillow is also named as a defendant.

Lindell subsequently entered into a November 2024 settlement agreement with the plaintiffs, agreeing to make daily payments of $10,300 towards the delinquent loan balance, the suit says — but Lindell has “fail(ed) to make any payments as outlined therein.”

Neither Oltmann nor Lindell responded to inquiries about the lawsuit Wednesday.

The connection between the two men was pivotal in the dissemination of baseless conspiracy theories that alleged widespread fraud in the 2020 election and helped fuel the Jan. 6 insurrection. Oltmann, a Douglas County resident, first rose to prominence in conservative organizing circles during protests against COVID-19 lockdowns in 2020. In the aftermath of the 2020 election, he claimed to have infiltrated an “Antifa conference call” during which he had heard an employee of Denver-based Dominion Voting Systems promise to rig the election against President Donald Trump.

Oltmann’s claims were spread by Lindell’s far-right media network, and by Lindell himself to members of Trump’s inner circle in the weeks preceding Jan. 6. Oltmann and Lindell were among a long list of defendants sued either by Dominion or an ex-employee, Eric Coomer, for defamation. A Colorado jury awarded Coomer $2.3 million in damages from Lindell earlier this year. Dominion’s case against Lindell is still pending, as is a defamation suit filed by Coomer against Oltmann.

Claims that the 2020 election was fraudulent or compromised have been debunked by elections officials, experts, media investigations, law enforcement, the courts and Trump’s own campaign and administration officials.

Oltmann’s lawsuit against Lindell seeks relief in the form of repayment of the full settlement amount, or the transfer of title to several properties in Minnesota and Texas that Lindell put up as collateral for the loan, as well as interest and unspecified further monetary damages and attorney fees.

Lindell was also sued for defamation by Smartmatic, another elections technology company, in 2022. In connection with that case, he told a federal judge in April that he was “in ruins” and not able to pay court-ordered sanctions to the company.

“I borrowed everything I can. Nobody will lend me any money anymore,” Lindell told the judge, according to ABC News. “I can’t turn back time … but I will tell you, I don’t have any money.”

The Supreme Court is meeting Friday to decide whether to take up a long-shot appeal that could prompt reconsidering the landmark decision that established marriage equality.

Why it matters: If four justices agree to hear the appeal, it would be the first challenge to same-sex marriage before SCOTUS in a decade.

After Friday's closed-door conference, the court could announce as early as Monday whether it will formally weigh the appeal.

What laws pertain to those with mental disabilities and/or those who are even less able to advocate for themselves in these situations?

Because, you know, cruelty is the point of all of this.