“The Supreme Court is beginning a new term with a sharp focus on President Donald Trump’s robust assertion of executive power.” — ABC News
– – –
United States Military v. Citizens
America’s armed forces, backed by their commander-in-chief, accuse Portland and Chicago residents of “unfriendly responses to enforced patriotism.” The defense claims that the occupation of a local Starbucks is not the primary role of the military.
Majority Opinion: “Our service men and women need all the support they can get to destabilize the home of deep dish pizza.”
Minority Opinion: “This is not our fight. Unrelated: Is that restaurant in The Bear real? And are reservations any easier to get now?”
– – –
The State of Mississippi v. Lisa’s Dollhouse
Lisa spent June 10 recess pretending her Fashion Frida doll was pregnant. The State Health Officer now demands that Lisa ensure the doll carries the child to term. Lisa’s parents side with the state.
Majority Opinion: “All babies, no matter who made them up or if they even exist, must be protected.”
Minority Opinion: “This would distract Lisa from producing her own children.”
– – –
Leia Johnson v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
ICE agents arrested Leia Johnson, a fifty-seven-year-old resident of Kings County, when she failed to produce papers after a return flight from the US Virgin Islands. Agents then left to attend the CMT Awards, forgetting their charge and leaving Leia in a foodless, flood-lit interrogation room for two weeks. Leia contends that ICE violated her rights as a citizen and a human. ICE contends that Leia “had the look.”
Majority Decision: “It falls to darker citizens to keep proof of patriotism on hand.”
Minority Decision: “Someone needs to let us out of this very bright room.”
– – –
Susan Parson v. Google Inc.
Actress Susan “Findom ASMR Goddess” Parson claims that YouTube seized her account without cause, and continued producing videos with a procedurally generated voice. Google Inc. denies none of this and claims the ability to replace users is essential to staying competitive with China, and thus a matter of national interest.
Majority Opinion: “I don’t understand any of these words.”
Minority Opinion: “Susan is a small business innovator, who was robbed of her filthy, filthy paypigs.”
– – – –
Vaccines v. Cold Plunges
Defendants (the world’s scientists) argue that vaccination programs have saved millions of lives. Plaintiff (YouTuber HealthDelts1) believes that twenty minutes every morning in an ice bath, followed by a green juice enema, will suffice. The entire case is presented via a podcast episode.
Majority Opinion: “Will this kill more poor people? Then yes.”
Minority Opinion: “Certain contagious diseases heavily concern elderly men in robes.”
– – –
Texas v. Trans Athlete TBD
Despite a generous window, Attorney General Paxton failed to select a defendant by trial date. The state argues that [trans athlete to be determined] has violated the [rights to be determined] of [women to be determined] across [sport to be determined] for [reasons to be determined].
Majority Opinion: “This young reprobate, whoever they are, is a disgrace to sport. When a defendant is selected, they are immutably guilty.”
Minority Opinion: “Let’s take a minute to get this right.”
– – –
Xerox v. GoPro
Xerox demands compensation from GoPro for becoming the “Xerox” of action cameras, thus infringing on Xerox’s intellectual property. GoPro argues that Xerox is no longer the Xerox of copy machines and is engaging in anti-competitive behavior with a non-competitor.
Majority Opinion: “GoPro has clearly Xeroxed Xerox’s intellectual property.”
Minority Opinion: “Xerox has copied past monopoly cases, and we should duplicate their outcome.”
– – –
The CIA v. Redacted
On _________, sixteen _________ were found without _______ or _______. ________ claims this is a final, fatal blow to American _______ and calls for immediate disbandment of the agency. The CIA claims _______ is an absolute _______ to avoid historic _______.
Majority Opinion: “This is the greatest breach of public trust in American history, and will not stand per the Third, Seventh, and Thirteenth Amendments.”
Minority Opinion: “They did what they had to.”
– – –
Guillotine v. State of Texas
Dallas prisons have turned to guillotines in recent months, as a “less soy” execution method. As a descendant of the original Dr. Guillotine, Jennifer Guillotine demands residuals for her inherited intellectual property. She also requests one personal guillotine use per year.
Majority Quote: “Inherited patents will stifle innovation.”
Minority Quote: “Kill ’em all.”
– – –
Trump v. Jobs
The president insists it is his “god-given right” to fire every federal worker, wiping out around 2.3 million jobs. In a joinder, the prosecution demands “those jobs not get counted as part of the jobs lost when we count all the jobs for the report about jobs.”
Majority Opinion: “Employment is a privilege, not a right. Lifetime appointments not included, of course.”
Minority Opinion: “You have to admit, he’s creating an impressive talent pool.”
– – –
Tom Pastors v. Pasadena Police Department
On February 7, Tom Pastors received a routine traffic stop, arrest, and beating. However, the plaintiff, backed by government records and genetic testing, claims unvarnished European descent. Tom alleges that his rights as a Real American were violated, along with the integrity of his spine.
Majority Opinion: “If officers can’t act on apparent blackness in the moment, they can’t serve the public.”
Minority Opinion: “One drop of white blood spilled is too much.”
– – –
The Department of War v. Merriam-Webster
Merriam-Webster maintains Palestine in the print and web versions of multiple products. The newly renamed Department of War claims that immediate security needs supersede First Amendment protections, while Merriam-Webster claims Palestine is a word.
Majority Opinion: “Shredding these dictionaries would waste good drone money.”
Minority Opinion: “Hate speech isn’t protected by the First Amendment. I applaud the Department for not using fire.”
– – –
Citizens United: Reckoning
The plaintiffs, owners of a local mom-and-pop store, claim that major corporations should not have more rights than citizens. The defense, a coalition of the world’s largest private entities, argues there is no precedent for humans being treated as people.
Majority Opinion: Sponsored by Palantir.
Minority Opinion: “I’ll need another zero on this donation before I co-sign this.”
– – –
ACLU v. Ga’rrox, Eater of Freedom
Per the Restoring Multiversal Joy executive order, State Department warlocks summoned Ga’rrox, Eater of Freedom. The American Civil Liberties Union alleges that soul ingestion amounts to voter intimidation and election fraud. Ga’rrox claims that all seven heads enjoy the right to assembly under the First Amendment.
Majority Opinion: “At last, Ga’rrox has come home. Praise him with seven songs on seven tongues.”
Minority Opinion: “No! Stay back! Stay ba—”
– – –
Future v. Barbarism
The defense argues that civilization should stick around, in one form or another. The plaintiff, who goes by the name Lord of the Wasteland, insists on embracing the Great Unraveling. The Lord, flanked by his BunkerBasterdz, refuses to leave the court until his case is heard.
Majority Opinion: “Let the many hordes fight for eternity.”
Minority Opinion: “We couldn’t make it just ten more years, huh?”
– – –
Current Timeline v. Samuel Roberts Prime
The plaintiff, Samuel Roberts, claims to have been sent back from a timeline where it’s “gone, all gone.” He now argues for the right to “terminate” the chief justice to prevent his future from coming to pass.
Majority Opinion: “The existence of another timeline obviates the value of Sarah Connor-ing any official, since their timeline remains unchanged.”
Minority Opinion: “There is only one timeline. The court has misunderstood the mechanics of cinematic time travel, removing a key tool for the Separation of Timelines enshrined by the Constitution.”
– – –
Majority v. Minority
Chief Justice John Roberts presents his case that since majority opinions always prevail, minority votes are redundant. The proposal seeks to oust justices who plan to disagree in the future.
Majority Opinion: “This’ll streamline the process.”
Minority Opinion: “[REDACTED]”
