Sam Fisher 90 🐝⚖️💛

Sam Fisher 90 🐝⚖️💛

@samfisher90.bsky.social

I Am A Black Man! Don't be offended. I speak the truth! #STFUAndJustVote #COLIPlus10Percent #NinaTurnerIsAFraud #FuckBernieSanders

4.1K followers3.8K following68K posts

Pinned

Sam Fisher 90 🐝⚖️💛
@samfisher90.bsky.social

Dear white women, Please don't misunderstand me. I'm a Black man who has for the 3rd time in consequential elections been betrayed and disrespected by your demographic. In 2016, your demographic voted for Trump in a 53% majority. In 2020, it was 55%. In 2024 it was 57%! That is why I am angry!

Sam Fisher 90 🐝⚖️💛
@samfisher90.bsky.social

Another Trump term?

dlvr.itAnother Trump term?President Donald Trump and his policies were a consistent and high-profile theme during the Supreme Court’s last term. The justices weighed in on several of Trump’s signature initiatives, from sweeping global tariffs and his efforts to limit the availability of birthright citizenship to his attempts to fire members of the Federal Trade Commission and Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors – as well as various important immigration cases. And that’s all before you get to the court’s interim docket, where Trump chalked up a number of significant victories. As it currently stands, the Supreme Court’s 2026-27 term is much less Trump-centric than its predecessor, featuring two challenges to Trump’s immigration policies and a dispute over access to information about Trump’s U.S. Department of Government Efficiency, also known as DOGE. But that could change soon: between Nov. 6 and mid-January, the justices are likely to consider a number of petitions for review filed by the Trump administration or Trump himself. Given the Office of the Solicitor General, which represents the federal government before the Supreme Court, has a high success rate – usually somewhere around 60% – for petitions that it files with the justices, Trump could once again end up dominating the term. Immigration Immigration is already a hot topic on the court’s docket, but two immigration disputes could raise the prominence of the issue even more. When the justices meet for their Nov. 6 conference, one of the cases that they will consider is Mullin v. Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, a challenge to a Trump administration policy of quickly removing immigrants who cross the border illegally without giving them the chance to seek asylum. Two federal courts in Washington, D.C., agreed with the challengers – a group of immigrants and three immigrants’ rights groups – that the policy violates federal immigration law. That prompted U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer to come to the Supreme Court in August, where he argued that the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit “threatens to dismantle” what Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin “describes as an ‘indispensable’ tool for controlling the border.” Last month, the Trump administration asked the justices to weigh in on another dispute arising from its immigration agenda – this time involving the government’s efforts to detain and deport several students and academics because of their support for Palestine. The government’s petition came in the case of one of those detainees, Badar Khan Suri, an Indian national who came to the United States for a postdoctoral fellowship at Georgetown University. The Trump administration has told the justices that they should also consider granting the petition for review filed recently by Mahmoud Khalil, an Algerian national who was born in a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria and became a lawful permanent resident of the United States in 2024. The government contended that both men should be deported based on determinations by Secretary of State Marco Rubio that their conduct – alleged support for the Islamic militant group Hamas, in Suri’s case, and participation in “antisemitic protests and disruptive activities” for Khalil – compromised U.S. foreign policy. Attorneys for Suri and Khalil went to federal court in New Jersey and Virginia, asking judges there to review the legality of their detentions on the ground that (among other things) they had been detained in retaliation for their speech. As their cases come to the court, the question that the justices have been asked to decide is whether federal trial courts even have the power to consider such challenges, or whether (as the Trump administration argues) those claims are instead barred by federal immigration law, which generally requires all challenges “arising from” deportation proceedings or the decision to begin such proceedings to go first to a federal appeals court, because they are also related to whether one can be deported. The federal courts of appeals have reached conflicting conclusions on the issue, which increases the likelihood that the justices will agree to weigh in. Suri’s response to the government’s petition for review and the government’s response to Khalil’s petition are both due on Nov. 20. The justices will likely consider both petitions at a private conference sometime early next year. In June, the Supreme Court granted the federal government’s petition for review in Genalo v. Black, agreeing to address whether there is a point at which a noncitizen has been detained so long that he or she has a constitutional right to a bond hearing and, if so, what standard the government must meet for him or her to remain in detention. That case was scheduled for oral argument in October, but it was dismissed in September because it was moot – that is, no longer a live controversy. The Trump administration returned to the court later that month, asking the justices to grant a petition for review involving the same questions, which Sauer called “exceptionally important.” The case was filed by a citizen of the Dominican Republic, identified in court filings only as D.C., who has spent most of his adult life in the United States and has three daughters with a U.S. citizen. D.C. was detained on the same day that he finished serving a prison sentence, and the government sought to deport him. In March 2026, when he had been in immigration custody for almost six-and-a-half months, U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer agreed with D.C. that he was entitled to “an individualized bond hearing, with constitutionally adequate procedural safeguards.” The Trump administration is now appealing that decision to the Supreme Court without waiting for a federal appeals court to rule on the case. Sauer told the justices that “granting immediate review would allow the Court to consider” the questions it had already agreed to decide in Black during the 2026-27 term. D.C.’s response is currently due on Dec. 8; if that deadline remains in place, the court would likely consider the government’s petition sometime in early to mid-January. Other Trump administration petitions In Trump v. Thakur, the justices will consider a petition for review stemming from the 2025 decision to end research grants from the Environmental Protection Agency, National Science Foundation, and National Endowment for the Humanities for researchers at the University of California. The researchers went to federal court, where they argued that the termination of those grants violated (among other things) their rights to free speech and fair treatment, as well as the federal law governing administrative agencies. A federal district court issued a preliminary order requiring the government to reinstate the grants. The government went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which upheld that decision with regard to the claims on the basis that the administration had ended the grants because of the recipients’ “perceived expression of DEI, DEIA, or environmental justice viewpoints.” The court of appeals rejected the government’s contention that it could terminate funding for programs that, in its view, are not in the public interest. “This overlooks that there is a critical distinction between creating or ceasing a particular program (or subsidy, or forum), on one hand, and discriminating against disfavored speaker viewpoints within a program (or subsidy, or forum), on the other,” the 9th Circuit wrote. The Trump administration came to the Supreme Court in August, asking the justices to weigh in. Sauer told the court that “if left to stand, the Ninth Circuit’s decision will establish precedent forcing taxpayers to waste countless dollars on private projects promoting ideologies that their public stewards reject.” Last week Sauer asked the Supreme Court to distribute the government’s petition, as well as the researchers’ brief opposing review, on Oct. 28, without waiting the 14 days normally prescribed by the court’s rules. This would allow the justices to consider the case at their Nov. 13 conference. In United States v. Jackson, the Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to rule on the legality of Trump’s appointment of an acting U.S. attorney in Nevada. Sauer told the justices that the appointment of Sigal Chattah (as well as others around the country) was not only lawful, but “a critical tool that the Executive Branch has used without meaningful objection for 25 years.” Under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, the federal law that governs how the executive branch can temporarily staff vacant positions that require presidential appointment and confirmation by the Senate, interim officers can serve for 120 days. Under that law, then-Attorney General Pamela Bondi appointed Chattah as the interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Nevada, effective April 1, 2025, after Jason Frierson, who was nominated by then-President Joe Biden, stepped down. With only a few days remaining before her interim appointment was set to expire, Chattah resigned, and Bondi designated her as the first assistant U.S. attorney. In that post, Bondi said, Chattah would have the power under the FVRA “to serve as Acting United States Attorney upon a vacancy in that office.” Bondi also gave Chattah the powers of a U.S. attorney for legal proceedings in Nevada. Three men who had been indicted on felony charges in Nevada after Chattah’s designation as the first assistant U.S. attorney sought to have, at a minimum, Chattah disqualified from appearing in the case as the “Acting U.S. Attorney.” The lower courts agreed that Chattah was not eligible to serve as the acting U.S. attorney, and that she could not play any role in the prosecution of the defendants’ cases. In a 34-page opinion, Judge Eric Miller of the 9th Circuit wrote that the “text and structure” of the FVRA are “unambiguous: The statute does not permit the executive to fill an existing vacancy by designating a new first assistant.” Instead, he reasoned, the FVRA “provides that a first assistant automatically succeeds to a vacant office” only if the first assistant was first assistant when the principal office became vacant. The automatic-succession rule, he concluded, “does not apply to a first assistant” – like Chattah – “who never served under a validly appointed official.” Moreover, Miller continued, the attorney general cannot achieve the same result “by delegating all of the functions and duties of the U.S. Attorney to someone else.” In a second petition, United States v. Office of the New York State Attorney General, the Trump administration has appealed a ruling against it by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in a dispute over the appointment of John Sarcone as the Acting U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York. When Sarcone obtained grand jury subpoenas for information from the New York attorney general’s office relating to its investigations of the National Rifle Association and Trump, the office sought to quash the subpoenas on the ground that Sarcone had not been validly appointed. A federal district court granted that request, and the 2nd Circuit upheld that decision. Sauer came to the Supreme Court in September, where he told the justices that Jackson was a better case in which to consider the validity of Trump’s appointments because the grand jury that issued the subpoenas in the New York case had been discharged and, as a result, the subpoenas were no longer enforceable. He urged the court to hold the New York case until it acts on Jackson. The defendants challenging Chattah’s appointment have until Nov. 5 to file their brief opposing review; the response of the N.Y. attorney general’s office is currently due on Nov. 2. There are several other notable petitions pending. In May 2025, the Supreme Court cleared the way for the Trump administration’s request to temporarily enforce a ban on transgender servicemembers. In a different case just over one year later, a divided panel of the D.C. Circuit upheld part of an order by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., barring the Trump administration from expelling several challengers to the policy from the military. (At the same time, that panel lifted the part of the order that would have required the military to admit transgender people who want to join the armed forces.) In its petition for review in United States v. Talbott, filed in August, the federal government asked the Supreme Court to review and eventually reverse the D.C. Circuit’s decision. Sauer called it “gravely erroneous” and argued that its “reasoning cannot be squared with this Court’s precedents or deference to the military.” The response from the challengers is currently due on Nov. 2. In Department of Health and Human Services v. Texas Medical Association, the Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on whether and when a federal court can throw out an agency’s action or rule in its entirety – a concept known as “universal vacatur.” The question comes to the court in a case that began as a pair of challenges (that were later combined) to rules issued to implement parts of a 2022 law that was intended to protect patients from surprise healthcare bills. A federal district court in Texas ruled for the challengers – the Texas Medical Association, a hospital, and four air ambulance companies – but a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit reversed that decision in part. The case then went to the full 5th Circuit, which threw out some of the challenged provisions. The Trump administration came to the Supreme Court this month, asking the justices to take up the dispute. It pointed to the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Trump v. CASA, holding that federal courts do not have the authority to enter so-called universal or nationwide injunctions, which prohibit the government from enforcing a policy anywhere in the country. The same logic underlying that case – the idea that courts “can grant ‘complete relief’ to parties before the court but cannot, as a rule, reach beyond them” – should apply to such regulations, Sauer contended. The challengers’ response is currently due on Nov. 13, although that deadline may be extended. Petitions filed by Trump’s personal lawyers Although the federal government filed all of the petitions discussed above, Trump is also seeking Supreme Court review in three petitions filed by his personal lawyers. The most recent petition is also the one that the justices could consider first: Trump v. Clinton, the president’s bid to revive his lawsuit against Hillary Clinton (and several others, including the Democratic National Committee) alleging “a coordinated scheme … to undermine his candidacy and Presidency through fabricated accusations of Russian collusion.” U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks dismissed the lawsuit, finding (among other things) that Trump had brought his claims too late, and that many of the statements alleged to have been made by the various defendants were “plainly protected by the First Amendment.” Middlebrooks also sanctioned Trump and his attorney, Alina Habba, ordering them to pay nearly $1 million. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit largely upheld Middlebrooks’ decision and affirmed the sanctions orders. The full 11th Circuit rejected Trump’s request for reconsideration, prompting Trump – represented by Richard Klugh – to come to the Supreme Court on Oct. 9. He asked the justices to weigh in on two questions: whether the time to file Trump’s claims should have been extended because of his unique role and responsibilities as president, and whether a court can fine the president and his lawyers for making the “substantial, unresolved argument” that the time to file Trump’s claims should have been extended. Through her longtime attorney, David Kendall, Clinton waived her right to file a response to Trump’s petition. The case has been distributed to the justices for consideration at their Nov. 6 conference. The court is extremely unlikely to grant review without first calling for Clinton to file a brief opposing review. In Trump v. CNN, the president is seeking to reinstate his defamation case against cable news giant CNN. Trump contends that when CNN used the phrase “the Big Lie” to describe his insistence that he had actually won the 2020 election, which had been stolen from him, it was attempting to link him with Adolf Hitler and Nazi propaganda – which, Trump said, was defamation. A federal judge in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, dismissed Trump’s case. In an eight-page, unsigned opinion, the 11th Circuit upheld that ruling. In his petition for review, which was filed in August, Trump contended that “CNN falsely and maliciously portrayed” him “as a knowing liar who fabricated objections to the 2020 election, lacked supporting evidence, and deliberately deceived the American people.” And in July, Trump filed the second of two petitions arising from lawsuits brought by E. Jean Carroll, who had alleged that in 1996 Trump had sexually abused her in a dressing room at a New York department store. The lawsuit leading to the second petition claimed that in June 2019, Trump had defamed her by calling her a liar – saying, among other things, that Carroll “was trying to sell a new book” and that her accusations were “totally false.” A jury awarded Carroll $83.3 million in January 2024. The 2nd Circuit upheld the award in 2025, finding “ample evidence that Trump was recklessly indifferent to Carroll’s health and safety” and that “Carroll was subjected to ongoing and prolific harassment as a result of these statements, including a multitude of death threats and other threats of physical injury.” The full court of appeals in April declined to rehear the case. Represented by a private lawyer, Robert Giuffra, Trump argued in his petition for review that in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Trump v. United States, in which it held that presidents generally have broad immunity for their acts while in office, the $83.3 million award cannot be allowed to stand. “The threat of even a single damages judgment based on official acts will render all Presidents ‘unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out [their] duties for fear that [they] may be next,’” Giuffra wrote. The federal government filed its own petition backing Trump, in which it (like Trump) urged the Supreme Court to also decide whether the court of appeals should have granted then-Attorney General Bondi’s request to recertify that Trump made his statements as part of his role as president and therefore the federal government, rather than Trump, should be the defendant in Carroll’s case. Carroll’s response to both petitions is currently due on Oct. 30.
Sam Fisher 90 🐝⚖️💛
@samfisher90.bsky.social

First Black Woman to Register a Drone Academy in Texas Wants to Help Black Entrepreneurs Build Drone Businesses Nationwide

dlvr.itFirst Black Woman to Register a Drone Academy in Texas Wants to Help Black Entrepreneurs Build Drone Businesses NationwideNationwide — Steffanie Rivers made history as the first Black woman in Texas to register a drone academy. Now, the founder and CEO of TCB Drones is building on that […] The post First Black Woman to Register a Drone Academy in Texas Wants to Help Black Entrepreneurs Build Drone Businesses Nationwide first appeared on BlackNews.com.
Sam Fisher 90 🐝⚖️💛
@samfisher90.bsky.social

Black Woman-Owned Eyewear Brand Partners With Kadeem Hardison for New Netflix Sequel

dlvr.itBlack Woman-Owned Eyewear Brand Partners With Kadeem Hardison for New Netflix SequelThe reimagined frames created in partnership with Kadeem Hardison bring a key element of the series’ style into a new chapter Nationwide — Vontélle Eyewear, a Black women-owned eyewear brand […] The post Black Woman-Owned Eyewear Brand Partners With Kadeem Hardison for New Netflix Sequel first appeared on BlackNews.com.