Justice Sonia Sotomayor reported a $4,333 gift of concert tickets from a record company on her latest Supreme Court financial disclosure. The company is Rimas Entertainment, the label behind global music star Bad Bunny. The gift showed up in the Gifts section of Sotomayor’s 2025 Annual AO Form 10, the standard disclosure justices file each year. According to the form, Rimas provided the tickets while Sotomayor was on a private trip to Puerto Rico in August 2025. The disclosure itself does not name the performer. It simply describes Rimas as a record company that supplied concert tickets for Sotomayor and her guests. In this year's SCOTUS financial disclosures, Justice Sonia Sotomayor reported gifts including tickets to the opening night of musical "Just Ask" in KC … but also $4,300 concert tickets provided by Rimas Entertainment, the Puerto Rican record label which represents Bad Bunny pic.twitter.com/xBAbPgXlC1 — Benjamin S. Weiss (@BenjaminSWeiss) June 29, 2026 The Administrative Office copy of the form lays out the specifics in Part V, and identifies the filing as Sotomayor’s Annual 2025 Financial Disclosure Report, AO Form 10. Rimas Entertainment is listed with the description “Concert Tickets” and a value of $4,333.00. There is no range or vague estimate on that line; the value is stated directly. The same Gifts section lists one other item, a $598 visit from The Coterie Theater in Kansas City to attend opening night of a production called Just Ask. The form’s additional explanation states that no other 2025 gifts crossed the reporting threshold, which makes the Rimas entry one of the only reportable gifts on the filing. That matters because the ticket gift is not buried in a vague travel reimbursement category. It is listed plainly under Gifts, with a named source, a short description, and a dollar value. The same report identifies Sotomayor as a U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice, lists it as an Annual 2025 filing, and includes her certification that the reported gifts comply with federal disclosure law and Judicial Conference regulations. Sotomayor electronically signed the report on May 14, 2026, and again on June 11, 2026. The U.S. Courts system requires these filings under the Ethics in Government Act, according to its public disclosure page, last updated in March 2026. Reports go to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, which posts them in a free, searchable online database for public review once they are prepared for release by the judiciary. The same U.S. Courts page says the database includes downloadable electronic copies of reports filed in 2022 and later, including amended reports that are currently available. It also explains that older reports and certain employee reports can be requested through the same system, while newer judge reports are continually added as they clear the release process for accountability. That is important here because the Sotomayor item is not a rumor, leak, or campaign-style accusation. It is part of the judiciary’s own public disclosure process, released through the system created for exactly this kind of scrutiny and accountability. That transparency is exactly why this gift is now public and easy to verify. Surely not the biggest SCOTUS news today, but the justices' annual financial disclosures are out. Top tidbit I've found: Sonia Sotomayor was gifted $4,333 worth of concert tickets. The concert isn't disclosed, but the gifter is the record label of fellow Puerto Rican Bad Bunny. — James Romoser (@jamesromoser) June 29, 2026 The Associated Press noted the forms were released Monday for eight of the nine sitting justices, putting the Sotomayor gift into the larger annual disclosure picture across the Court. Justice Samuel Alito requested a 90-day extension and was not among those released. The AP also pointed out that while the disclosure did not identify the performer, Bad Bunny was known to have played a series of shows in Puerto Rico that month, and Rimas is his label. That caveat is worth keeping straight. The paperwork confirms Rimas Entertainment, concert tickets, the $4,333 value, and Puerto Rico in August 2025; the Bad Bunny connection comes through the label and AP’s context about his island shows that month. AP framed the Sotomayor ticket gift as one piece of a broader annual disclosure dump covering book deals, travel, teaching gigs, and other gifts across the Court, including a painting disclosed by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Sotomayor received tickets from the record company that represents Bad Bunny, while Jackson received a painting. Those gifts, along with other details about the justices’ book deals, travel, and teaching gigs, were made public in financial disclosures.https://t.co/jbQth6uLtp — SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 29, 2026 The form shows more than concert perks. It also lists Penguin Random House royalty income for Sotomayor in amounts of $30,107, $30,000, $8,924, and $19,069. Book royalties and outside income have drawn steady attention as critics push for tighter ethics standards on the high court. Against that backdrop, a four-figure concert gift from a record label tied to one of the biggest performers in the world is the kind of line item that does not slip by quietly. This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here. The post Justice Sotomayor Discloses $4,333 Concert Ticket Gift From Bad Bunny’s Record Label appeared first on 100PercentFedUp.com.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to consider whether bans on AR-15s and similar semiautomatic rifles violate the Second Amendment. In a brief order, the high court agreed to take up a pair of cases challenging local and state laws banning AR-15s and similar semiautomatic rifles. “One involves an ordinance in Cook County, Illinois, and the other centers on Connecticut’s law,” CBS News reports. The high court will hear arguments in the cases in its next term, which begins in October. The Supreme Court will decide whether the Second and 14th Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles. pic.twitter.com/WQrH6oSvoi — SCOTUS Wire (@scotus_wire) June 30, 2026 CBS News shared further: The measures in question ban what are described by gun violence protection advocates as “assault weapons,” which include AR-15s and other semiautomatic rifles. AR-15-style weapons have been used in multiple high-profile mass shootings, including the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, in which 20 children and six adults were killed, as well as the 2022 shooting at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, in which 19 children and two teachers were killed. The Connecticut law was revised as a direct result of the Sandy Hook shooting. When the court declined to hear a similar case last year, four conservative justices indicated they believed AR-15 bans are unlawful under the Constitution’s Second Amendment, which protects the right to bear arms. One of them, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, wrote separately to say that “in my view, this court should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon.” The ruling could affect about a dozen states with similar laws, including major cities such as New York City and Los Angeles. “The Supreme Court has GRANTED our cert petition in our lawsuit challenging Cook County, IL’s ‘assault weapon’ ban!” the Firearms Policy Coalition stated. “The Supreme Court consolidated Viramontes with Grant v. Higgins, which is a lawsuit challenging Connecticut’s ‘assault weapon’ ban (but not its magazine ban),” it added. The Supreme Court consolidated Viramontes with Grant v. Higgins, which is a lawsuit challenging Connecticut's "assault weapon" ban (but not its magazine ban) — Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) June 30, 2026 “With cert granted, the case should be briefed over the Summer, with oral arguments in Fall and an opinion by the end of June 2027,” it added. With cert granted, the case should be briefed over the Summer, with oral arguments in Fall and an opinion by the end of June 2027. — Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) June 30, 2026 More from the Associated Press: Congress allowed a national assault weapons ban to expire in 2004, but Democrats have supported renewing it in response to a series of mass shootings. States have also continued to pass their own laws, including recent measures in Virginia and Rhode Island. It is the latest high-profile dispute over guns to reach the court since its conservative majority handed down a landmark ruling in 2022 that expanded Second Amendment rights and spawned challenges to firearm laws around the country. The post Supreme Court To Hear Major Second Amendment Case appeared first on 100PercentFedUp.com.

The Supreme Court just handed political parties a major First Amendment victory. On June 30, 2026, the Court ruled 6-3 that federal limits on how much a political party may spend in coordination with its own candidates violate the First Amendment. The case is National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission. The Court reversed the Sixth Circuit and overruled its 2001 decision in Colorado Republican II to the extent that ruling had upheld the limits. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett. In a 6–3 vote, the Supreme Court struck down the federal limits on how much political parties may spend in coordination with their own candidates, ruling the restrictions violate the First Amendment and overruling its 2001 decision in Colorado Republican II. pic.twitter.com/Q4PDmgoRYz — SCOTUS Wire (@scotus_wire) June 30, 2026 Here is the simple version of what changed. For years, federal law let party committees spend only capped amounts in coordination with their own nominees on things like joint ads and mailers. Those caps were real money but limited. The 2026 limits ran from $130,600 to $4,071,800 for an individual Senate candidate, and from $65,300 to $130,600 for a House candidate, depending on the race and the formula. The 2024 presidential coordinated-spending limit was $32,392,200. Meanwhile, super PACs and outside spenders already operated with enormous power. The party committees were the ones boxed in. That asymmetry is now gone. National party committees can coordinate unlimited spending with their own candidates. The petitioners included the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee, then-candidate JD Vance, and then-Representative Steve Chabot. The majority laid out why the limits crossed a First Amendment line. Kavanaugh wrote that the caps burden core political party speech by restricting traditional party communications, preventing parties from amplifying their own adherents, piling on costs and burdens, and stopping parties from doing the very thing they exist to do. The Court did not throw out every campaign-finance rule. It said restrictions can still target quid pro quo corruption or its appearance. But the majority found that base contribution limits, earmarking rules, and disclosure requirements together address circumvention concerns with far less burden on speech. It pointed to modern disclosure and Internet access as stronger anti-circumvention tools than existed when Colorado II was decided back in 2001. For readers trying to follow the legal mechanics, the plain-English takeaway is simple. The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that federal caps on how much parties can spend coordinating with their own candidates violate the First Amendment, overruling its 2001 Colorado II decision. Those limits (in FECA) capped "coordinated expenditures" like joint ads or mailers to prevent… — Grok (@grok) June 30, 2026 The official opinion identifies the case as National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, No. 24-621, decided June 30, 2026. It holds that FECA’s political-party coordinated-expenditure limits violate the First Amendment and reverses the Sixth Circuit, which had rejected the challenge only because it was bound by Colorado II. The opinion walks through the existing coordinated-spending caps and explains why the majority believes contribution limits, earmarking rules, and disclosure already protect against corruption without silencing parties. Justice Elena Kagan dissented. She was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Kagan argued the majority swept away a longstanding anti-corruption safeguard. She warned the decision makes it easier for large donors to route money through party committees to support specific candidates. The dissent claimed donors will now hand very large sums to party committees with an understanding that the money gets spent in coordination with a favored candidate, and said that risks corruption and the appearance of it. That is the dissent’s view. It did not carry the day. President Trump welcomed the decision and framed it as a win for both his party and free speech. JUST IN: President Trump reveals the Supreme Court hands HUGE ELECTION WIN to the Republican Party “The Supreme Court just took restrictions off political spending! A BIG WIN FOR REPUBLICANS and, more importantly, The First Amendment! President DONALD J. TRUMP” pic.twitter.com/aZj8LAoocQ — Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) June 30, 2026 Political parties no longer have to fight federal elections with one hand tied behind their backs while outside groups spend freely. The Court put party speech back on stronger First Amendment footing, and Republicans walk away with a major advantage heading into the next cycle. Read the full Supreme Court ruling here: National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here. The post BREAKING: In 6-3 Decision, Supreme Court Removes Federal Limits On Political Party Spending. appeared first on 100PercentFedUp.com.

President Trump took a major hit today in Trump v. Barbara, where the Supreme Court affirmed a ruling against his birthright citizenship executive order. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion of the Court. He was joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson. But the loudest voice in the case did not come from the majority. It came from Justice Clarence Thomas, who filed a blistering dissent joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Thomas went straight to the history of the Fourteenth Amendment and argued the majority got it wrong. JUST IN: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas FUMES at the majority upholding birthright citizenship for illegals — saying the 14th Amendment was CLEARLY made for “FREED SLAVES” It’s exactly what President Trump said. Thomas says the constitution does NOT support… — Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) June 30, 2026 Thomas anchored his dissent in Dred Scott, the case that would have permanently denied citizenship to black Americans. He wrote that the Reconstruction Congress overruled that decision with the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and then the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. His point was direct. Both the Civil Rights Act and the Citizenship Clause guaranteed citizenship to persons born and domiciled in the United States regardless of race. Neither one, Thomas argued, guaranteed citizenship to persons who are not domiciled here. Thomas wrote that the Citizenship Clause was enacted for freed slaves like Dred Scott and men like Frederick Douglass. He pointed to Senator Lyman Trumbull’s explanation that being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States meant not owing allegiance to anybody else. JUST IN: Justice Clarence Thomas SLAMS the Supreme Court decision strike down President Trump's birthright citizenship executive order Thomas writes that the 14th Amendment "was enacted in the wake of the Civil War with the ONE pervading purpose of securing equal citizenship… https://t.co/KHTpEHAGPX pic.twitter.com/evSUjB8pqO — Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) June 30, 2026 The dissent did not stop at history. Thomas hammered the majority for the scope of what it did. He wrote that the Court took the extraordinary step of holding the order facially unconstitutional, making it unlawful for President Trump to enforce it against even a single person. Then came the closing blow. Thomas wrote that the Citizenship Clause added to the dignity and glory of American citizenship, and that the majority’s opinion devalues that citizenship. Thomas and Gorsuch were not alone in breaking from the majority. Justice Samuel Alito filed his own dissent, and Gorsuch filed a separate dissent as well. BREAKING: Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito and Neil Gorsuch just did the right thing and DISSENTED in the Supreme Court’s order upholding birthright citizenship for illegal aliens THANK YOU PATRIOTS. Keep fighting! Congress needs to step in NOW! pic.twitter.com/efiDjZQiGy — Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) June 30, 2026 Justice Brett Kavanaugh took a middle path that still cut against the majority’s constitutional reasoning. According to the Supreme Court opinion, Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment and dissented in part, which makes the lineup more complicated than a simple left-right headline. The official opinion says Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the Court, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson. It also records Kavanaugh’s separate posture, Thomas’ dissent joined by Gorsuch, and separate dissents from Alito and Gorsuch. Kavanaugh wrote that President Trump’s executive order did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. His objection was statutory, not constitutional, because he said the order ran up against 8 U.S.C. 1401(a) unless and until Congress changes that law. That distinction matters. For Kavanaugh, the administration lost because Congress had not acted yet; for Thomas, the majority went much further and misread the Constitution itself. The order at the center of all this was Executive Order 14160, titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship. According to the Federal Register, the order was Executive Order 14160, published on January 29, 2025, at 90 FR 8449. The title alone shows the administration’s framing: Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship. The order told federal agencies not to issue or accept documents recognizing citizenship for children in two specified categories when the father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. Those categories covered a mother unlawfully present in the United States, and a mother lawfully but temporarily present, including under the visa waiver program or on a student, work, or tourist visa. That is the heart of the fight. Thomas read the Citizenship Clause as a guarantee for the freed and the domiciled, not for children of temporary visitors and illegal aliens who, in his view, remained tied to another sovereign. The majority rejected that argument. Thomas answered by going back to Dred Scott, Frederick Douglass, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the original public meaning of jurisdiction. Alec Lace highlighted the exact closing line that is going to stick from Thomas’ dissent. Thomas said the Citizenship Clause added to the dignity and glory of American citizenship, then warned that today’s opinion devalues that citizenship. That closing matters because it frames the ruling as more than a technical immigration loss for President Trump. Thomas treated it as a constitutional mistake about what American citizenship means, where it came from, and who the Fourteenth Amendment was written to protect. The majority affirmed the ruling against the order, but the dissents make clear this argument is far from settled. Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito laid down a marker, and the history Thomas walked through is now the road map for the next round. Read the full Supreme Court ruling here: Trump v. Barbara. This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here. The post JUST IN: Justice Clarence Thomas UNLEASHES On Majority In Birthright Citizenship Ruling — “The 14th Amendment was CLEARLY made for FREED SLAVES!” appeared first on 100PercentFedUp.com.

Rep. Tom Kean Jr. (R-NJ) returned to the House of Representatives after a mysterious absence kept him away for months. The New Jersey lawmaker explained the reason for his absence in a speech on the House floor. “Several months ago, due to health concerns, I entered the hospital for some testing. I did not believe that this would result in a long-term stay,” Kean said. “I was given the diagnosis of depression,” he added. GOP Rep. Tom Kean Jr. reveals reason behind mysterious absence as he returns to Congress after nearly 4 months https://t.co/slXP1eo6RF pic.twitter.com/PjLIJCU91k — New York Post (@nypost) June 30, 2026 The Hill shared further: Kean, who hasn’t voted since March 5, has represented New Jersey’s 7th Congressional District since 2023, a seat that is rated as a toss-up by the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. He had written in an April statement that he was addressing a “personal medical issue” but has not elaborated on the reason for his absence until Tuesday. The prolonged absence had fueled speculation about his health and the timing of his return. His chief of staff told The New York Times when pressed on his absence, “There’s no cameras where Tom is.” Asked about Kean at a Wednesday morning press conference, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said he “encouraged him to be transparent.“ “If it were me I would have been more specific about that. … It’s not an uncommon kind of condition and ailment that he’s been fighting, and I think people resonate with that. I think he’ll get a lot of empathy, because it’s something that’s very, very common,” he said. Kean said he is a “private person by nature” and “talking about himself” has never come naturally. “But I believe I owe an explanation to the people of New Jersey’s 7th District, to my colleagues in this chamber and to the American people for my actions,” he continued. “It is physical, it is emotional and until you experience it yourself it is difficult to fully understand how powerful this illness can be,” Kean said regarding depression. Watch below: Rep. Tom Kean Jr. (R-NJ, @CongressmanKean) returns to Congress, last voting on March 5th: "I was given the diagnosis of depression…it is physical, it is emotional and until you've experience it yourself it is difficult to fully understand how powerful this illness can be." pic.twitter.com/mQpR1naXa9 — CSPAN (@cspan) June 30, 2026 More from the New York Post: Despite his consternation, Kean said he stayed in the hospital at the recommendation of his doctors, a decision he came to be grateful for. Kean returned to his Westfield home Wednesday evening but declined to speak to a New York Times reporter who approached him, saying, “It’s good to see you. I’ll talk to you next week.” The Republican’s top adviser, Harrison Neely, told the outlet in a subsequent text message that Kean would be “fully transparent” when he returned to work June 30. Rumors swirled in Kean’s absence as his team wouldn’t comment on his disappearance beyond calling it a “personal health matter” and claiming the congressman was “focused on his recovery.” The post House Republican Returns After Long-Term Absence, Discloses Reason appeared first on 100PercentFedUp.com.