We wl hear an argument this morning in case 22 138, counterman vsus colorado. Mr. Wyden. Mr. Chief justice and may please the court. The court has long held that because of the importance of free speech in our country, categorical exception to the content regulation must be well defined narrowly limited. Speech cannot be exempted wiout proof of a long set of tradition without subjecting thatpeech to regulation. The state has not come close to meeting its burden without burden of punishing without proothe speaker knew the statement would cause fear. Where this Court Reversed convictions for cross burning. And series of opinions emphasizing the central importance intent plays in making threats actually subscribe. Where the state predicts harm it has shown no difference in criminal enforceme or the availability of civil protective orders and many jurisdiction that is already requires subjective intent. There, prosecutors prove mens rea the same way they always have und criminal statutes t
The Supreme Court has ruled 72 in favor of the law that prritizes keeping native american adoptees within their ibe or family. It supportshe constitutionality of the 1978 indian Child Welfare act which is being challenged on the ground tt violated the equal protection clause. The case was argued before the court last november. This is about three hours and 15 nutes. We will hear arguments this morning in case 21376 and the consolidated cases. Thk you and may i please the court. Government, in 2020 there we over 11,000 nativrican children in state foster care. The indian Child Welfare act deprives indian children of thee the best intes of the child test. It replaces the test tube the hierarchy o the placement preferences that puts nonindian families at the bottom of the list. As the court explained, this fixed rates a federal policy of sending indian children to the dian community. The problem is that there are fewer than 2,000 native american foster homes. That means each year hundreds
By americans. It w brought forward by a plaintiff who objected to a clause in a 2017 change in tax law that would have wired a repatriation tax. This is about two. The court squarely held us much just a few years foowg adoption of the amendment. The the presidt kes easy work of the case. It is undisputed the petiors realize nothing from their stock investment. They were taxed not because they had income but becse in 2017 they happened to own sharein corporation. This is a taxn e ownership of property. Dispensing with the need for realization, the framers regarded this as the essential chec on the power of congress to taxrorty. The government cannot identify a single thing congress could not tax its income under its position realization is unnecessary. Without realization there is no limiting principle. Accepting th government position on income would make a cap hash of the current law. Gateway defition of gross income asserts congresses taxing por der the 16th amendment roh reaching al
This is about two hours. The court squarely held us much just a few years following adoption of the amendment. The the president makes easy work of the case. It is undisputed the petitioners realize nothing from their stock investment. They were taxed not because they had income but because in 2017 they happened to own shares in a corporation. This is a tax on the ownership of property. Dispensing with the need for realization, the framers regarded this as the essential check on the power of congress to tax property. The government cannot identify a single thing congress could not tax its income under its position realization is unnecessary. Without realization there is no limiting principle. Accepting the government position on income would make a cap hash of the current law. Gateway definition of gross income asserts congresses taxing power under the 16th amendment through reaching all income from whatever source derived. If the government possession position in this case is right th
Doctrine or keep it. Chief Justice Roberts well hear argument first this morning in case 221219, relentless versus the department of commerce. Mr. Martinez. Oral argument of Roman Martinez on behalf of the petitioners martinez mr. Chief justice, and may it please the court for too long, chevron has distorted the judicial process and undermined statutory interpretation. It should be overruled for three reasons. First, chevron violates the constitution. Article iii empowers judges to say what the law is. It requires them to interpret federal statutes using their best and independent judgment. Chevron undermines that duty. It reallocates Interpretive Authority from courts to agencies, and it forces courts to adopt inferior agency constructions that are issued for political or policy reasons. In doing so, chevron blocks judges from serving as faithful agents of congress. It mandates judicial bias and encourages agency overreach. And by removing key checks on executive power, it threatens i