Right is still right, even if you stand by yourself.

Mr. Chief Justice, that plays in the court.

Welcome to Case in Point, the legal show for regular people for this Thursday, March 6th,

2025 edition.

I am your host, Sarah Partial Perry, senior legal fellow here at the Heritage Foundation,

and we're glad that you've joined us.

Lots of legal news at the top of the hour to go over the Supreme Court on Wednesday back to

federal judge's power to order the Trump administration to pay $2 billion to the U.S.

Agency for International Development or USAID contractors. But it didn't require immediate payments. In doing so,

the court on a 5-4 vote rejected an emergency application filed by the Department of Justice

after U.S. District Court, Amir Ali, issued a series of rulings demanding the government unfreeze

funds that President Donald Trump

put on hold with an executive order. In a scorching dissent written by Justice Samuel Alito,

he wrote, does a single district court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked

power to compel the government of the United

States to pay out and probably lose forever $2 billion taxpayer dollars. The answer to that should be

an emphatic no, but a majority of this court apparently thinks otherwise, I am stunned, end quote. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard

oral arguments in a case involving guns trafficked from the United States into Mexico. Based on

arguments, the court seems likely to block a historic $10 billion lawsuit against U.S. gun manufacturers as both conservative and liberal

justices raised concerns about allowing the government of Mexico to hold firearm manufacturers liable

for drug cartel violence south of the border. Federal law grants brought immunity to the gun industry in part to protect companies

from costly litigation that could drive them out of business. But Mexico alleges the law at hand

...