In this week's edition of "How Appealing Weekly Roundup," we delve into a series of compelling legal stories that have shaped the judicial landscape, highlighting the Supreme Court's active involvement in critical national issues and the unsettling challenges faced by judges across the country.

Supreme Court's Emergency Docket Dominates 2025: The Supreme Court's emergency docket was the center of attention this year, as detailed by Justin Wise and Jordan Fischer of Bloomberg Law. The docket, often used for urgent and significant issues, was particularly notable for decisions that had wide-reaching implications on public policy and civil rights.

Harassment Against Judges Who Ruled Against Trump: Lawrence Hurley of NBC News reports on an alarming trend where judges who have ruled against former President Trump faced severe harassment, including over 100 unsolicited pizza deliveries, some indicating foreign meddling. This disturbing tactic sends a clear and chilling message about the security challenges judicial officers are facing.

Supreme Court Intervention in Chicago: In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court rejected a bid by Trump to deploy the National Guard in Chicago, marking a high-profile check on executive power. Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News provides an insightful analysis of the court's decision, accessible through the Supreme Court's official documents.

Extravagant Legal Bills Unveiled: In a bizarre revelation of legal spending, Alexander Saeedy of The Wall Street Journal discusses the peculiar case of Charlie Javice, whose legal team's expenditures included $530 on gummy bears and lavish hotel stays, culminating in a staggering $74 million in total fees. This case highlights the often opaque and extravagant nature of legal financial practices.

Relief for Deportees Under the Alien Enemies Act: Politico’s Kyle Cheney and Josh Gerstein cover a groundbreaking ruling by Judge James Boasberg requiring the Trump administration to offer relief to men deported under the Alien Enemies Act. However, the administration is not mandated to ensure their immediate return to the U.S., leaving significant implications for immigration policy and enforcement.

Critical Review of SCOTUS by Court Watchers: As Trump's policies continued to challenge the boundaries of judicial oversight, Kelsey Reichmann of Courthouse News Service reports on the critical reception of the Supreme Court's handling of the shadow docket amidst these controversies. The balance of power between the judiciary and the executive branch has been put to a rigorous test.

Impact of Supreme Court’s Mail-in Ballot Ruling on Voters: Nick Corasaniti and Christine Zhang of The New York Times explore the potential consequences of a Supreme Court ruling that could require mail-in ballots to arrive by Election Day. This decision could disproportionately affect voters in both rural and urban settings, possibly disenfranchising hundreds of thousands.

This roundup offers a snapshot of a pivotal moment in U.S. legal history, where the judiciary's resilience and adaptability are continually tested by political, social, and personal pressures. For more detailed accounts of these stories, visit Howard Bashman's "How Appealing" blog.