SCOTUS AM

October 8, 2025 — SCOTUS AM

Oct 8, 2025

1008 AM TT·SCOTUS news morning report October 8 YT

Two Massachusetts sanctuary cities — Chelsea and Somerville — asked a court to block the Trump executive order that would withhold federal funding from sanctuary cities. The court said no — not yet. Because so far, nobody has actually taken away any money. You can't get an injunction against something the government hasn't done yet.

Chelsea and Somerville, MA sued over an executive order targeting sanctuary cities with funding cuts. They argued that not knowing whether their grants would be cut made planning impossible. The court denied the preliminary injunction. The reason: the cities hadn't actually lost any funding yet. They're on some agency lists, but the agency in question hadn't changed any grants. For equitable relief, there must be an actual harm — anticipated harm to planning is insufficient at the preliminary stage. The case continues; this is just a ruling against interim relief.

Preliminary injunction standardArticle III injury-in-factsovereign immunity. The court's analysis of standing

Constitutional question: Spending Clause and anti-commandeering (10th Amendment) are the substantive issues when the case reaches the merits; the threshold here is procedural. Sanctuary policies reflect local law enforcement decisions — the question is whether conditioning federal grants on cooperating with ICE is permissible conditional spending or unconstitutional commandeering. Same doctrinal frame as Illinois v. FEMA and the SNAP data cases.

CHC v. Noem 25-cv-12173

A coalition of journalists, union members, and ordinary Chicago residents went to federal court with a question Bryan's audience had been asking for months: how is any of this legal? Specifically — the flash bang grenades thrown at civilian bystanders, the tear gas deployed against a pastor while he was praying in the street, the pepper balls fired at protesters. A TRO hearing was set for 2 PM Chicago time this afternoon.

Chicago Headline Club v. Noem is a broad First Amendment challenge brought by journalist organizations, a private journalist club, several unions, and individual Chicago residents. The alleged incidents: an Oak Park mother who suffered temporary hearing loss after a flash bang grenade was thrown next to her by a federal officer; a 67-year-old retired union painter who vomited after being tear-gassed by federal agents; a 38-year-old Chicago resident shot with pepper balls; the senior pastor of First Presbyterian Church of Woodlawn, fired upon with pepper balls and then sprayed with tear gas while offering prayer in the street. Bryan posted both the complaint and the TRO motion in his shared documents under First Amendment/Chicago Headline Club. The proposed TRO: bars use of riot control weapons without an actual riot; bars interference with First Amendment activity; bars interference with journalists; requires all federal officers to be properly identified with name and badge number visible outside uniform even when wearing riot gear. Bryan's frame: "People keep asking how any of this is legal. Well, we'll find out if it is."

First Amendmentuse of forcefederal officer accountability

Constitutional question: First Amendment protects peaceful assembly, petition, and the press. When federal officers use riot-control weapons against people engaged in protected First Amendment activity — including prayer, bystander observation, and journalism — they may violate the First Amendment directly, not just incidentally. The structural question this case will develop: what constraints apply to federalized forces deployed domestically, including the Chicago crime emergency? Fourth Amendment excessive-force doctrine may also apply if the individuals' detentions or physical contact are challenged.

Bost v. Illinois BoE 24-568

Michael Bost ran for Congress in Illinois. He won. He's still suing because the state allows mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be received for two weeks after. He's arguing this violates the law. The courts below said he didn't have standing to sue. The question at SCOTUS: do candidates have a right to challenge state election laws in federal court? Bryan's concern: the Trump administration has a lot of state election laws it'd like to challenge. If candidates get that standing, this matters far beyond Michael Bost.

Bost v. Illinois BoE presents an Article III standing question about whether congressional candidates have the right to challenge state election rules in federal court. Bost won his 2024 House race but sued because Illinois allows mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be received up to two weeks later. The district court and court of appeals both dismissed for lack of standing: to sue in Article III, you need an injury-in-fact, traceable to the defendant, and particularized to you as an individual (not a generalized civic grievance about election law). The lower courts found Bost's claimed injury — campaign spending he attributed to the uncertainty of late-arriving ballots — didn't meet this standard. At SCOTUS, the big potential ruling is whether candidates as a category have Article III standing to challenge election laws in their own races. Bryan flagged the broader implication: if SCOTUS rules candidates have automatic standing to challenge state election laws, it opens the door to systematic federal court challenges by the Trump administration and allied candidates to state voting procedures nationwide. The Thomas angle: Thomas has written that the Elections Clause's state authority is near-absolute for anything short of a state refusing to hold federal elections at all; if he holds that line, a ruling in Bost's favor would face a significant conservative dissenter.

Article III standingElections Clause (Art. I, §4)candidate standing

Constitutional question: Art. I, §4 (Elections Clause) gives states primary authority over the "times, places, and manner" of congressional elections, with Congress able to override by legislation. Thomas's narrow reading — that federal intervention is only justified if a state refuses to hold elections at all — reflects a strong federalist view of state election sovereignty. A broad ruling on candidate standing could fundamentally shift the balance, allowing systematic federal judicial review of state election administration decisions on the petition of any candidate who can claim some campaign expenditure tied to the disputed rule.

Postal Service v. Konan 24-351

A Black property owner in Texas alleges the local post office stopped delivering mail to her and her tenants because of her race. She sued the USPS for damages. The federal government is immune from most tort suits — but not all. The Federal Tort Claims Act carved out an exception. But there's a carve-out to the carve-out for the postal service: claims arising from "loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission." The question: is intentional racial withholding of mail a "loss" or "miscarriage"? Because it's definitely not negligent.

Konan owns property in Texas and alleged the local post office withheld mail delivery to her and her tenants because of her race. She sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act (1946), which waived sovereign immunity for many tort claims against the federal government. But Congress created a specific exception for the postal service: FTCA claims are barred if they arise from "loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter." USPS argued Konan's claim falls under this exception. Konan argues it doesn't: the exception covers accidents and errors ("loss," "negligent transmission"), not intentional discriminatory withholding. Intentional and negligent are legal opposites; her claim can't be "negligent transmission." The question is whether "loss" or "miscarriage" covers intentional conduct. USPS countered with a policy argument: in 2024 alone, USPS received 335,000 mail delivery complaints; if it had to provide discovery in even a fraction of those cases as civil litigation, mail delivery nationwide would grind to a halt. USPS also said Konan could sue the individual employees. Konan and amicus groups: the government should be accountable for egregious discriminatory conduct. Bryan: "I want more details about the story between Konan and the post office employees. I bet there's a story there."

Federal Tort Claims Actsovereign immunitypostal exception (28 U.S.C. § 2680(b))

Constitutional question: The federal government's sovereign immunity from suit is a constitutional doctrine (not just a statutory one), but Congress can waive it. The FTCA is Congress's partial waiver. When Congress carves exceptions back out of that waiver — as it did for the postal service — the scope of those exceptions is both a statutory and structural constitutional question: how much accountability does sovereign immunity preserve even against allegedly discriminatory conduct by federal employees?

MARGOT REVIEW NOTES

← October 7, 2025 — SCOTUS AM October 10, 2025 — Aloha Friday →