Trio Of US Supreme Landmark Cases Issued: Cities Can Ban Homeless Sleeping Outdoors, Strips Federal Agency Unilateral Powers To Regulate, Limits Criminal Obstruction Law As Applying To January 6 Prosecutions; Six Supreme Court Trump Disciple’s Continue With Right Wing Judicial Activist  Agenda

On June 28, the U.S. Supreme Court neared its end of its term this year a trio of landmark decisions that will transform the lives of millions of Americans. All three rulings have been described as “profound” and “sweeping” as the United States Supreme Court rendered 3 sperate opinions on the homeless, government regulatory power, and the January 6 prosecutions of thousand who stormed the United States capitol to stop the certification of the election of President Joe Biden.

In one decision, the court held that local laws effectively criminalizing homelessness do not violate the U.S. Constitution and do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. In a second decision, the court overturned 40 years of precedent governing how federal agencies can issue regulations and requiring federal court approval.  In the third decision, the Supreme Court vacated all obstruction charges the Department of Justice  has filed against hundreds of January 6 defendants, including former President Donald Trump, declaring the Department of Justice exceeded its authority and went too far.  The United States Supreme Court term is not over yet in that the decision on Presidential immunity and concerning whether former President Donal Trump has immunity from criminal prosecution will be announce July 1.

This blog article is an in depth analysis and commentary of the 3 United States Supreme Court case decisions released on June 28.


The case of Grants Pass v. Johnson is a US Supreme Court case that challenges a municipality’s ability to bar people from sleeping or camping in public areas, such as sidewalks and parks. The case came from the rural Oregon town of Grants Pass, which appealed a ruling striking down local ordinances that fined people $295 for sleeping outside after tents began crowding public parks. The homeless plaintiffs argued that Grants Pass, a town with just one 138-bed overnight shelter,  criminalized them for behavior they couldn’t avoid: sleeping outside when they have nowhere else to go. Meanwhile, municipalities across the western United States argued that court rulings hampered their ability to quickly respond to public health and safety issues related to homeless encampments.  The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over the nine Western states, ruled in 2018 that such bans violate the Eighth Amendment in areas where there aren’t enough shelter beds.

The Supreme Court  considered  whether cities can enforce laws and take action against or punish the unhoused for sleeping outside in public spaces when shelter space is lacking. The case is the most significant case heard by the high court in decades on the rights of the unhoused and comes as a rising number of people in the United States are without a permanent place to live.

In a 6-3 decision along ideological lines, the Supreme Court  reversed a ruling by a San Francisco-based appeals court that found outdoor sleeping bans amount to “cruel and unusual punishment” under the United States Constitution. The majority found that the 8th Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment does not extend to bans on outdoor sleeping in public places such as parks and streets.  The Supreme Court ruled  that cities can enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outdoors, even in West Coast areas where shelter space is lacking.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority:

“Homelessness is complex. Its causes are many. So may be the public policy responses required to address it. … A handful of federal judges cannot begin to ‘match’ the collective wisdom the American people possess in deciding ‘how best to handle’ a pressing social question like homelessness. … Cities across the West report that the 9th Circuit’s involuntary test has crated intolerable uncertainty for them.”

Gorsuch suggested that people who have no choice but to sleep outdoors could raise that as a “necessity defense,” if they are ticketed or otherwise punished for violating a camping ban.

A bipartisan group of leaders had argued the ruling against the bans made it harder to manage outdoor encampments encroaching on sidewalks and other public spaces in nine Western states. That includes California, which is home to one-third of the country’s homeless population.

Homeless advocates argue that allowing cities to punish people who need a place to sleep would criminalize homelessness and ultimately make the crisis worse. Cities had been allowed to regulate encampments but couldn’t bar people from sleeping outdoors.

Progressive Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketangi Brown Jackson dissented. Sotomayor read from the bench the dissent and said this:

“Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime. … Punishing people for their status is ‘cruel and unusual’ under the Eighth Amendment. … It is quite possible, indeed likely, that these and similar ordinances will face more days in court. … It is possible to acknowledge and balance the issues facing local governments, the humanity and dignity of homeless people, and our constitutional principles. … [But the majority instead] focuses almost exclusively on the needs of local governments and leaves the most vulnerable in our society with an impossible choice: Either stay awake or be arrested.”

Attorney Theane Evangelis, who represented Grants Pass before the high court, applauded the ruling, saying the 9th Circuit decision had “tied the hands of local governments.”  Evangelis said this:

“Years from now, I hope that we will look back on today’s watershed ruling as the turning point in America’s homelessness crisis.”

The Supreme Courts ruling comes after homelessness in the United States has peaked and grown 12% last year to its highest reported level, as soaring rents and a decline in coronavirus pandemic assistance combined to put housing out of reach for more people. More than 650,000 people are estimated to be homeless, the most since the country began using a yearly point-in-time survey in 2007. Nearly half of them sleep outside. Older adults, LGBTQ+ people and people of color are disproportionately affected, advocates said. In Oregon, a lack of mental health and addiction resources has also helped fuel the crisis.

The Link to a quoted and relied upon news sources are here:


Peggy Bailey, executive vice president for policy and program development at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities had this to say about the ruling:

“Policymakers must focus on real solutions like rental assistance, cash supports, and strong, flexible community services that are proven to end homelessness and stabilize people with low incomes in housing.”

Some see the decision as removing an unnecessary restriction on the multifaceted approaches cities can take to addressing homelessness. Timothy Sandefur, vice president for Legal Affairs at the Goldwater Institute, in a statement said in a statement:

[This ruling is] the first step toward a sensible approach to the many problems of homelessness. … Cities can only address these problems on a case-by-case basis.  [The decision] enables local communities to find actual solutions for the people who are suffering.”

Legal experts and advocates for the homeless worry that the decision will encourage a more punitive approach to managing homelessness at the expense of other solutions.  which could exacerbate the crisis.

Jennifer Hanlon Wigon, executive director of Women’s Lunch Place, a shelter in Boston said this:

“It sets a really dangerous precedent. …  It’s shifting the focus to law enforcement from human services.”

Claire Herbert, assistant professor of sociology at the University of Oregon, said this:

“There needs to be [a] wider reflection on the causes of homelessness and how we should be addressing this.” 

Legal experts worry that cities will now implement camping bans even when they don’t have to, creating more barriers to getting out of homelessness. Accumulated, unpaid fines and a criminal record make it hard, for instance, to get a driver’s license and can be used by landlords to deny housing.

Another consequence may be that homeless populations will move to communities that do not enforce camping bans, or have more resources. Police will have to enforce the bans at the expense of other issues.

Margot Kushel, director of the Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative at the University of California, San Francisco said this:

“The solutions to homelessness have always been clear, and this is not it. … [The ruling] is sweeping. It is extreme. It is cruel.”

The Link to a quoted and relied upon news sources are here:


The Supreme Court ruling in Grants Pass v. Johnson will no doubt have a major impact on the class action lawsuit filed against the city of Albuquerque. The city should seek an immediate dismissal of the case based on the Supreme Court ruling  or perhaps a settlement.

It was on Monday, December 19, 2022 the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico, the NM Center on Law & Poverty, and the law firms of Ives & Flores, PA and  Davis Law New Mexico filed a “Class Action Complaint For Violations of Civil Rights and for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief” against the City of Albuquerque on behalf  4 men and 4 women identified Plaintiffs alleged to be homeless. According to the complaint filed, not one of the 8 plaintiff’s allege they were charged or arrested for refusing to leave Coronado Park on the day it was closed nor were they jailed.

The Plaintiffs allege they were displaced from Coronado Park when the city closed it and that the city did not provide satisfactory shelter options to them although the city said it did give notice and offered shelter and services, including vouchers.  According to an ACLU the lawsuit was filed to stop the City of Albuquerque from destroying encampments of the unhoused, seizing and destroying personal property and jailing and fining people.

The lawsuit alleges the city unlawfully seized personal property, denied due process of law, and violated constitutional rights by destroying property and forced all the unhoused at Coronado Park out with nowhere for them to go and with the city not providing shelter for them. The lawsuit is seeking court orders that will require the city to cease and desist enforcement actions to stop the unhoused from camping in public spaces which includes public streets, public rights of ways, alleyways, under bridges and city parks unless the city has shelter or housing for them.


The lawsuit specifically enumerates New Mexico Statutes and City Ordinances that have been enacted to protect the general public health, safety, and welfare and to protect the public’s peaceful use and enjoyment of property rights. The lawsuit does not challenge the constitutionality of any of the state statutes nor city ordinances.

The lawsuit makes the very broad allegation that “the  City regularly enforces City ordinances and state laws against unhoused people in a manner that criminalizes their status as homeless … [and] …  Unhoused people who erect tents or makeshift shelters around the City are routinely cited and/or arrested for violations of [the state laws and city ordinances].   Violations of these statutes and ordinances are punished as misdemeanors.”

All the laws cited have been on the books for decades and are applicable and are enforced against all citizens and not just the unhoused. The specific statutes cited in the lawsuit are:

  1. NMSA 1978, Section 30-14-1 (1995), defining criminal trespass on public and private property.
  2. NMSA 1978, Section 30-14-4 (1969), defining wrongful use of property used for a public purpose and owned by the state, its subdivisions, and any religious, charitable, educational, or recreational association.
  3. Albuquerque City Ordinance 12-2-3, defining criminal trespass on public and private property.
  4. Albuquerque City Ordinance 8-2-7-13, prohibiting the placement of items on a sidewalk so as to restrict its free use by pedestrians.
  5. Albuquerque City Ordinance 10-1-1-10, prohibiting being in a park at nighttime when it is closed to public use.
  6. Albuquerque City Ordinance 12-2-7, prohibiting hindering persons passing along any street, sidewalk, or public way.
  7. Albuquerque City Ordinance 5-8-6, prohibiting camping on open space lands and regional preserves.
  8. Albuquerque City Ordinance 10-1-1-3, prohibiting the erection of structures in city parks.

All the above laws are classified as “non-violent crimes” and are misdemeanors.  The filing of criminal charges by law enforcement are discretionary when the crime occurs in their presence.  The City of Albuquerque and the Albuquerque Polic Department has agreed that only citations will  be issued and no arrests will be made for violations of the 8 statutes and city ordinance as part of a court  approved settlement in federal case dealing with jail overcrowding. 

A preliminary injunction, which limited the circumstances under which the city could require people camping outside to leave or could seize their belongings, went into effect November 1, 2023. The injunction cited both the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, much like the Grants Pass Court of Appeals decision, and the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.  The injunction was designed to limit the citie’s sweeps of homeless encampments but the injunction was dropped in May. The injunction required that campers be given a 72-hour notice to vacate and be offered storage for belongings and transportation to a shelter. It also required an opportunity for belongings to later be reclaimed. The city said even though the injunction was dropped in May, it has been giving campers appropriate notice and offering resources.  The city said it will continue to send staff to conduct welfare checks at encampment sites and offer a list of services for campers.

An August trial  date in the  lawsuit filed against the city of Albuquerque alleging it violated the civil rights of homeless people was vacated, pending a decision in the Grants Pass case.  A new date has not been set, according to court records.

A news release from the City of Albuquerque in response to the Supreme Court decision said it “appreciates more flexibility to enforce ordinances.” The release said the city responds to more than 50 encampments per day. Mayor Tim Keller for his part said  this in a statement:

“I know there will be mixed reactions to this ruling in our community. … So I want to be clear [that] the City will continue to do everything in our power to get people the help they need and to deal promptly with illegal encampments.”

Links to a quoted and relied upon news sources is here:


The United States Supreme Court in a  6-3 ruling, overturned the 1984 precedent case of  Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.   The court ruling  shifts the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches of government. It gives  an important victory to conservatives who have sought for years to rein in the regulatory authority of the “administrative state.” The decision significantly weakens the power of federal agencies to approve regulations that  have sweeping implications for the environment, public health and the workplace.  The decision overturns what is referred to as the Chevron Doctrine that requires the  courts to give deference to federal agencies when creating regulations based on an ambiguous law. Congress routinely enacts open-ended laws that give latitude to agencies to work out and adjust the details to new circumstances.

In the case of the fishermen who brought the case, the law allowed the government to mandate the observers but was silent on the question of who had to pay their salaries, which the fisherman argue added roughly $700 a day to their costs. They encouraged the court to rule that agencies couldn’t enact such a requirement without explicit approval from Congress.

Conservatives have long sought to rein in regulatory authority, arguing that Washington has too much control over American industry and individual lives. The justices have been incrementally diminishing federal administrative power for years, but the new case gave the court an opportunity to take a much broader stride. The Supreme Court has been prohibiting federal agencies from  approving  regulations on their own. In 2021  the court’s conservatives struck down a Biden administration effort to extend an eviction moratorium first approved during the Trump administration. Last year, the court’s conservatives similarly invalidated a Biden plan to wipe out student loans of millions of Americans.

The ruling means that federal courts no longer have to defer to federal  agency interpretations in deciding whether their policies are lawful. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court that the  Chevron Doctrine “defies the command of” the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how agencies operate, because that says that courts should interpret statutes, arguing the longstanding precedent told courts to “ignore, not follow, ‘the reading the court would have reached’ had it exercised its independent judgment” and “demands that courts mechanically afford binding deference to agency interpretations.”  Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his majority opinion:

“Chevron is overruled. … Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.”  While appreciating that laws may not always be clear, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion the Framers envisioned “that the final ‘interpretation of the laws’ would be ‘the proper and peculiar province of the courts. … “The only way to ‘ensure that the law will not merely change erratically, but will develop in a principled and intelligible fashion,’ is for the Court to leave Chevron behind.”  Chief Justice Roberts noted that the decision does not affect past cases, and that courts would need to provide a “special justification” for overturning them.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote separately and  called the  Chevron Doctrine “a grave anomaly when viewed against the sweep of historic judicial practice. … It undermines core rule-of-law values ranging from the promise of fair notice to the promise of a fair hearing … [It] operated to undermine rather than advance reliance interests, often to the detriment of ordinary Americans.”

Progressive Justice Elena Kagan, writing a dissent joined by the court’s two other progressives Justices Sonia Sotomayor and  Ketangi Brown Jackson said this about overturning the  Chevron Doctrine:

“In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue — no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden — involving the meaning of regulatory law. As if it did not have enough on its plate, the majority turns itself into the country’s administrative czar. …  A rule of judicial humility gives way to a rule of judicial hubris.”

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said this:

“[This ruling is] yet another deeply troubling decision that takes our country backwards. … Republican-backed special interests have repeatedly turned to the Supreme Court.  Once again, the Supreme Court has decided in the favor of special interests.”

In Supreme Court briefing, the federal government  warned the court that overturning Chevron would be a “convulsive shock to the legal system” and “destabilizing” to all areas of the federal government, arguing the ruling would “threaten settled expectations in virtually every area of conduct regulated by federal law.”

The Supreme Court’s ruling is likely to reverberate throughout the federal government mandating that federal judges weigh in on any number of federal policies and regulation and overturn them without deferring to the federal agencies, which critics on the left fear will lead to conservative judges striking down scores of policies enacted by the Biden administration or other Democratic White Houses. Although Chief Justice Roberts noted  in the  court’s ruling  that the ruling will not apply to any rulings in the past that have relied on Chevron, it’s likely to have a big impact on the judiciary going forward.

Critics of the ruling see it as part of a broader effort by conservative activists, aided by a sympathetic conservative activist Supreme Court to transfer regulatory power from federal agencies to the courts. One example is that the Supreme Court rolled back the power of the Securities and Exchange Commission to impose civil penalties for fraud. Instead, federal regulators would need to seek a jury trial. Notwithstanding, the Supreme Court  has sided with federal agencies on occasion, including when it upheld the funding mechanism of the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

But the prevailing trend has seen the court chip away at the powers of the so-called “administrative state.”  Two years ago, the court issued a decision that fleshed out what it calls the major questions doctrine. The doctrine holds that federal agencies can’t take major actions without clear direction in law from Congress, with courts deciding which actions are “major.”

Critics of the administrative state argue that the Chevron Doctrine  puts too much power in the hands of unelected and unaccountable federal bureaucrats. Supporters of the administrative state claim that power is now being put in the hands of unelected and unaccountable federal judges.

Links to quoted and relied upon news sources are here:


The United State Supreme Court  ruled 6-3 to limit the federal obstruction criminal law that has been used to charge hundreds of January 6  Capitol riot defendants as well as former President Donald Trump.   The Supreme Court ruled that the charge of “Obstructing an Official Proceeding”, enacted in 2002 in response to the financial scandal that brought down Enron Corp., must include proof that defendants tried to tamper with or destroy documents. The provision of the law at issue  imposes criminal charges on anyone who “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.” A conviction carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.

The Supreme Court remanded the case of former Pennsylvania police officer Joseph Fischer back to the lower court the to determine if Fischer could be charged with “Obstructing an Official Proceeding. Fischer has been indicted for his role in disrupting Congress’ certification of Democrat Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential election victory over Trump.  Fischer is among about 350 people who have been charged with “Obstructing an Official Proceeding.” Some pleaded guilty to,  or were convicted of, lesser charges.

More than 1,400 people have been charged with Capitol riot-related federal crimes. For around 50 people who were convicted, obstruction was the only felony count. Of those, roughly two dozen who still are serving their sentence are most likely to be affected by the ruling. Only some of the people who violently attacked the Capitol on January  6, 2021, have been charged with obstruction. The overwhelming majority of the approximately 1,000 people who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to Capitol riot-related federal crimes were not charged with obstruction and will not be affected by the outcome.

Under the ruling issued, dozens of defendants could seek new sentences, ask to withdraw guilty pleas, or have charges dropped. Most defendants convicted of obstruction were also convicted of another felony so their sentence may not be significantly impacted, if at all.

Notwithstanding, the court ruling is being  used  for claims by former President Trump and his Republican allies that the Justice Department has treated the Capitol riot defendants unfairly.

Roughly 170 Capitol insurrection defendants have been convicted of obstructing or conspiring to obstruct the January  6 joint session of Congress, including the leaders of two far-right extremist groups, the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers. A number of defendants have had their sentencings delayed until after the justices rule on the matter.

The U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, which has handled January  6 prosecutions, said no one who has been convicted of or charged with obstruction will be completely cleared because of the ruling. Every defendant also has other felony or misdemeanor charges, or both, prosecutors said.

Some rioters have even won early release from prison while the appeal was pending over concerns that they might end up serving longer than they should have if the Supreme Court ruled against the Justice Department. They include Kevin Seefried, a Delaware man who threatened a Black police officer with a pole attached to a Confederate battle flag as he stormed the Capitol. Seefried was sentenced last year to three years behind bars, but a judge recently ordered that he be released one year into his prison term while awaiting the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Republican Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the court’s opinion. He was  joined by Republican conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas, and by progressive Democrat   Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a former federal public defender who also wrote a separate opinion.

While the case stemmed from January 6 riot, Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that the government’s interpretation of the law would criminalize not only serious conduct but also “a broad swath of prosaic conduct, exposing activists and lobbyists alike to decades in prison.” Roberts wrote the government “must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so.”

In a concurrence, Democrat Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson,  a member of the court’s progressive wing and a former public defender,  wrote that the mob “inflicted a deep wound on this nation [but the case] is not about the immorality of those acts. … Our commitment to equal justice and the rule of law requires the courts to faithfully apply criminal laws as written, even in periods of national crisis.”

Republican Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissented, along with Democrat Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. Barrett, one of three justices appointed by Trump, wrote that the law clearly encompasses the events of January 6.  Barrett wrote:

“Events like January 6th were not its target. (Who could blame Congress for that failure of imagination?) But statutes often go further than the problem that inspired them.  … The riot forced Congress to suspend the proceeding, delaying it for several hours.  …  [The court’s majority did]  “textual backflips to find some way, any way,  to narrow the reach [of the obstruction law].

Roberts, Jackson and Barrett made strikingly different word choices in their opinions. While Roberts described the attack as a “breach of the Capitol,” Barrett described the events as a riot and the participants as rioters. Jackson wrote that “an angry mob stormed the United States Capitol.”


Republicans, who have cast the January  6 defendants as victims of political persecution, have pounced on the ruling to argue the rioters have been unfairly prosecuted by the Justice Department. Trump has embraced Jan. 6 defendants on the campaign trial, and floated pardons for the rioters if he wins in November.

Trump, speaking at a rally in Chesapeake, Virginia, described the Supreme Court’s decision as a “great thing.” Trump said this:

“Free the J6 hostages now.  They should free them now for what they’ve gone through. They’ve been waiting for this decision for a long time. They’ve been waiting for a long time. And that was a great answer. That is a great thing for people that have been so horribly treated.”


Attorney General Merrick Garland said he was disappointed with the court’s decision, which he said “limits an important federal statute.”   Garland was quick to point out that the cases against the “vast majority” of people charged in the attack won’t be affected. Garland said this:

“January 6 was an unprecedented attack on the cornerstone of our system of government — the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next. … We will continue to use all available tools to hold accountable those criminally responsible for the January 6 attack on our democracy.”


It’s also likely to slow down cases in a court already clogged with January  6 defendants as judges are forced to grapple with how to apply the ruling. “It’s going to be a big mess,” said Randall Eliason, a professor at George Washington University Law School and former federal prosecutor in Washington.

Seventeen of the 18 trial judges who have weighed in have allowed the charge to stand. Among them, U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, a Trump appointee, wrote that “statutes often reach beyond the principal evil that animated them.” But U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, another Trump appointee, dismissed the charge against Fischer and two other defendants, writing that prosecutor went too far. A divided panel of the federal appeals court in Washington reinstated the charge before the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case.

It’s unclear how the court’s decision will affect the case against former Predident  Trump in Washington, DC, which includes charges other than obstruction. Special Counsel Jack Smith has said the charges faced by the former president would not be affected. Trump’s case is on hold while the Supreme Court considers a separate case in which Trump is claiming immunity from prosecution. A decision is expected on Monday.


With these 3 landmark decisions by the United States Supreme Court, the 6 Supreme Court disciples of Donald Trump continue their assault on all things progressive with their judicial activism. The 6 appointed Republican Justices have already made a profound difference with their judicial activism over the last 2 years.

 At the end of June, 2023, the United State Supreme Court issued 4 major decisions that were highly anticipated and with great concern confirming it has become a far right wing activist court.   The first was the court’s rejecting an attempt to empower legislatures with exclusive authority to redraw congressional districts without court intervention. The second struct down decades of affirmative action in college admissions.  The third ruled that a Christian business owners can discriminate and withhold services to the LGBTQ+ community based on religious grounds.  The fourth invalidated President Joe Biden’s student loan debt relief plan. Then there is the matter of the Supreme Court reversing Roe v. Wade and 50 years of precedent and denying a woman’s right to choose an abortion and leaving it up to the state’s.

As the saying goes, elections have consequences. The 2024 presidential election is again shaping up to be one of the most consequential elections in our history where Supreme Court decisions will be on the ballot as well as the control of congress, not to mention our basic right to vote in an election.

A story has been told and retold about  founding father Benjamin Franklin. Franklin was walking out of Independence Hall after the Constitutional Convention in 1787, when someone shouted out, “Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?” To which Franklin supposedly responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

What we have now is a Republican “politcal judicial monarchy” consisting of 6 conservative Republican Justices all dressed up in their black ropes with gavels replacing scepters and a courtroom replacing a royal thrown room as they render their decrees of justice to carry out the will of Der Führer Trump and his Trump Republican Party.

This entry was posted in Opinions by . Bookmark the permalink.


Pete Dinelli was born and raised in Albuquerque, New Mexico. He is of Italian and Hispanic descent. He is a 1970 graduate of Del Norte High School, a 1974 graduate of Eastern New Mexico University with a Bachelor's Degree in Business Administration and a 1977 graduate of St. Mary's School of Law, San Antonio, Texas. Pete has a 40 year history of community involvement and service as an elected and appointed official and as a practicing attorney in Albuquerque. Pete and his wife Betty Case Dinelli have been married since 1984 and they have two adult sons, Mark, who is an attorney and George, who is an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT). Pete has been a licensed New Mexico attorney since 1978. Pete has over 27 years of municipal and state government service. Pete’s service to Albuquerque has been extensive. He has been an elected Albuquerque City Councilor, serving as Vice President. He has served as a Worker’s Compensation Judge with Statewide jurisdiction. Pete has been a prosecutor for 15 years and has served as a Bernalillo County Chief Deputy District Attorney, as an Assistant Attorney General and Assistant District Attorney and as a Deputy City Attorney. For eight years, Pete was employed with the City of Albuquerque both as a Deputy City Attorney and Chief Public Safety Officer overseeing the city departments of police, fire, 911 emergency call center and the emergency operations center. While with the City of Albuquerque Legal Department, Pete served as Director of the Safe City Strike Force and Interim Director of the 911 Emergency Operations Center. Pete’s community involvement includes being a past President of the Albuquerque Kiwanis Club, past President of the Our Lady of Fatima School Board, and Board of Directors of the Albuquerque Museum Foundation.