[apparent]

Here's a reliable alternate source. [1] I try to avoid single-sourcing on important news, since most outlets have a bias one way or the other.

1: https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/06/court-allows-trump-to-fir...

EDIT: adding that it's sad that people downvote an alternate source that is from an expert outlet. I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim SCOTUSblog is biased, and NPR has surely been credibly accused.

[the_sleaze_]

It's difficult to find anything except wildly biased news sources. After reading the article I know I should be upset about what the supreme court has done, and I should be fearful about what could possibly happen tomorrow because of it.

But I don't have a very clear picture about what actually happened.

How could one possibly build their own opinion one way or another from this piece?

[apparent]

> How could one possibly build their own opinion one way or another from this piece?

Having read coverage of it previously, just seeing the headline told me it was not likely to be a balanced/informative article.

[oldsklgdfth]

IANAL, but pretty curious of SCOTUS. I just read a lot of the opinions. (I hate that the pdf does not have a table of contents).

I've used the mental model of math and theorems to reason about it. In this model, all laws have to be consistent with base axioms from the constitution (and common law maybe?)

I have come to realize that it is not a great analogy. The model breaks down when you realize that the law is not about "truth" (objectively true statements), but about "goodness" - what is right or wrong. That's the subjective component. Reading opinions help guide through the logic and what is thought of as good. Dissents are useful to glee into different perspectives. Some dissents are high tower rants though. Learn to discern the two.

Take a look at Marbury v. Madison[0] for the background on how SCOTUS gained the power of judicial review, i.e. power to strike down laws as unconstitutional. Judicial review is not granted in the constitution.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

[the_sleaze_]

> Judicial review is not granted in the constitution.

Pretty fascinating. I didn't know this.

[nxobject]

i.e., welcome to Constitutional law, where divining the effect of a amendment written in 19th century prose lives and dies on jurisprudential philosophy, rather than decided case law. (Is that what you mean by the “(and common law?)” parenthetical?)

[oldsklgdfth]

By common law I refer to British common law which pops up in opinions.

References to "domicile" come from common law (in Trump v Barb).

I may be mistaken.

[oldsklgdfth]

I watched the live chat to get the news about these opinions.

Good on the reporters that cover the opinions and post updates. Without much editorialization I may add.

As an aside, I find it very exciting that audio of oral arguments are broadcast and opinions are read without cameras in the room It's a retro feeling.