Rationally Based is a Supreme Court blog focused on the United States Supreme Court’s decisions, judicial philosophies, and their effects. We analyze landmark cases, legal trends, and the Court’s role in shaping law and society, keeping it clear and concise. Whether you’re a legal professional, law student, or just interested in the highest court, we provide insights into its impact on American jurisprudence. Explore our articles to stay informed on the Court’s decisions and their implications.
Loading articles...
Featured Articles
Latest Articles
Is There a Path to Overturn Flag Burning Precedents
In a move that has reignited a long-simmering debate, President Trump has issued a new executive order aimed at prosecuting the burning of the American flag. The order, titled "Prosecuting the Burning of the American Flag," has sparked both praise and condemnation, with supporters lauding it as a defense of national pride and opponents decrying it as an assault on free speech.
Trump Admin Ends Shotgun and Rifle Ban in DC
In a significant policy shift, federal prosecutors in the District of Columbia have been directed to stop bringing felony charges against individuals solely for carrying rifles or shotguns. The new directive, confirmed by U.S. Attorney for D.C. Jeanine Pirro, stems from a Justice Department determination that the city's longstanding ban on the public carry of long guns is unconstitutional in light of recent Supreme Court precedent.
SCOTUS Asked to Overturn Same-Sex Marriage Rights
In a direct challenge to one of the most significant civil rights rulings of the 21st century, former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis has formally petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn its 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Davis’s petition stems from a lawsuit where she was found liable for damages for refusing to issue marriage licenses based on her religious beliefs. Her lawyers argue that the Court should reverse its precedent, asserting that Obergefell was "egregiously wrong" and "on a collision course with the Constitution from the day it was decided."
Trump Administration Aims to Weaken Current Gun Regulations
The Trump Administration has initiated a decisive shift in the national debate over firearms, moving beyond legislative battles to employ a novel strategy centered on executive authority. The administration's core objective is to systematically dismantle the federal firearms regulatory framework from within. This is being achieved not by repealing laws through Congress, but through targeted non-enforcement of statutes, strategic reversals in the Department of Justice's (DOJ) litigation posture, and administrative actions to nullify prior regulations.
SCOTUS Stays Injunction Keeping Nearly 1,400 Department of Education Employees Reinstated
On July 14, 2025, the Supreme Court granted the Trump administration’s request to temporarily pause an order by U.S. District Judge Myong Joun, clearing the way for the Department of Education to proceed with its planned reduction in force (RIF) of nearly 1,400 employees. This decision, issued in an unsigned ruling, marks a significant development in a legal battle that began earlier this year, raising critical questions about the administration’s authority to reshape federal agencies and the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.
SCOTUS Allows Trump to Remove the Heads of Independent Agencies
The Supreme Court has ordered a stay that halts the reinstatement of Gwynne Wilcox to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Cathy Harris to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), following President Donald Trump's attempt to fire them without cause. These two agencies are pivotal to forming policy on worker’s rights in both the private and public sector, as such the heads of each agency will be extremely influential moving forward.
Barnes v. Felix: A Broader Lens for Police Excessive Force Claims
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court in Barnes v. Felix (2025) reshaped the framework for evaluating excessive force claims against law enforcement under the Fourth Amendment. The Court rejected the Fifth Circuit’s narrow “moment-of-threat” rule, which confined the reasonableness inquiry to the precise instant an officer perceived a threat. Instead, the Court reaffirmed that the “totality of the circumstances” standard governs, requiring courts to consider all relevant events leading up to the use of force. This ruling clarifies the scope of Fourth Amendment analysis and has significant implications for how excessive force cases are adjudicated.
Oral Argument Breakdown: Trump v. CASA, Inc.
In Trump v. CASA, Inc., argued on May 21, 2025, the justices grappled with the contentious issue of national (or universal) injunctions that block the enforcement of a federal executive order beyond the specific parties involved in a lawsuit. The case centers on Executive Order 14,160, issued by President Trump on January 20, 2025, titled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship." This order aimed to reinterpret the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants or temporary visitors. Multiple district courts issued nationwide injunctions to halt the order’s enforcement, prompting the government to seek a stay from the Supreme Court.
A.A.R.P. v. Trump & the Alien Enemies Act
A.A.R.P. v. Trump covers an application for injunctive relief filed by Venezuelan nationals detained under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA). The detainees, identified as members of Tren de Aragua (TdA), a designated foreign terrorist organization, sought to prevent their summary removal from the United States under the AEA. The case involves complex legal questions about due process rights, the adequacy of notice before removal, and the applicability of class-wide relief in habeas proceedings.
Notable Cases at SCOTUS This Term
Families across the country wait to see if their kids can access certain medical care, parents wonder if their religious beliefs will be respected in schools, and police wait for standards of accountability. As the Supreme Court’s 2024-2025 term wraps up, five major cases are set to tackle these questions and more, touching on LGBTQ+ rights, religious freedom in child rearing, disability discrimination and accommodations, online free speech, and police accountability.
Meet Ross J. Fodera, Esq.
Ross J. Fodera, Esq. is the founder of the Fodera Law Firm and specializes in small business legal services, including employment disputes, real estate transactions, corporate formation, contract disputes, and risk management. Since becoming an attorney Mr. Fodera has been involved in a number of six-figure settlement negotiations, EEOC proceedings, and real estate litigation. Mr. Fodera takes pride in providing affordable services and effectively communicating with clients so they understand every stage of their representation. Mr. Fodera is barred in the District of Columbia and Massachusetts.
In a significant policy shift, federal prosecutors in the District of Columbia have been directed to stop bringing felony charges against individuals solely for carrying rifles or shotguns. The new directive, confirmed by U.S. Attorney for D.C. Jeanine Pirro, stems from a Justice Department determination that the city's longstanding ban on the public carry of long guns is unconstitutional in light of recent Supreme Court precedent.