iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

With Supreme Court expansion in the news, check out legislation that members of Congress have introduced to increase the Court from 9 justices to 13: supreme13.org/resources/le...

supreme13.org

Legislation to Expand the Supreme Court | Supreme 13

Review congressional legislation to expand the U.S. Supreme Court to 13 justices, including the Judiciary Acts of 2021 and 2023.

000

Supreme 13 @supreme13.org · 2h

"Booker [is] unapologetically for . . . enlarging the U.S. Supreme Court."

100

Supreme 13 @supreme13.org · 2h

Thank you @booker4ky.bsky.social for endorsing Supreme Court expansion! Watch this August 28, 2026 PBS story about Kentucky Senate candidate Charles Booker: www.pbs.org/video/august...

pbs.org

Comment on Kentucky | August 28, 2026 | Season 53 | Episode 9

Journalists from around the state discuss the news of the week with host Bill Bryant.

100

Reposted by Supreme 13

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 4h

Over dissents from the three Democratic appointees, #SCOTUS *grants* Tennessee's request to vacate the stay of execution the Sixth Circuit had entered in the case of Christa Pike, clearing the way for her execution: www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

supremecourt.gov

3213962

Supreme 13 @supreme13.org · 3h

We are just one Democratic president and one Democratic Congress away from hopefully seeing posts like these that begin, “Over dissents from the six Republican appointees…”

010

Reposted by Supreme 13

Chris Geidner @chrisgeidner.bsky.social · 4h

BREAKING: SCOTUS’s Republican appointees will allow Tennessee to kill Christa Pike tonight, vacating a stay of execution entered by the Sixth Circuit this morning. The three Democratic appointees dissent.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 26A428
KENNETH NELSEN, WARDEN v. CHRISTA GAIL PIKE
ON APPLICATION TO VACATE STAY
[September 30, 2026]
The application to vacate stay of execution of sentence of death presented to JUSTICE KAVANAUGH and by him referred to the Court is granted. The September 30, 2026 order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Cir-cuit, case No. 26-5864, granting a stay of execution is vacated.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN and
JUSTICE JACKSON join, dissenting.
The State of Tennessee is set to execute Christa Pike for the 1995 murder of Colleen Slemmer. Earlier today, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a stay of Pike's execution solely to "adequately address and resolve" the issues presented in Pike's pending application for relief. Order in In re Pike, No. 26-5864, ECF Doc. 10-2, p. 2. Tennessee now asks this Court to vacate that stay and permit it to proceed with Pike's execution today. Stunningly, the Court acquiesces. Because its decision clears the way for the State to execute Pike before her still-pending legal challenges to her conviction can be properly considered, I respectfully dissent.

41457216

Supreme 13 @supreme13.org · 3h

They have the power and they choose when and how to exercise it. For those who worry about tit-for-tat expansion if the Democrats expand the Court in 2029, progressives will be thrilled to have at least four years without having to read about orders like these.

010

Supreme 13 @supreme13.org · 3h

In this unfortunate case, the composition of the Court literally meant the difference between life and death. Democratic Senators and Representatives who are concerned about the legitimacy of the Court need look no further than to orders like these to understand why expansion in 2029 is imperative.

1173

Reposted by Supreme 13

Chris Geidner @chrisgeidner.bsky.social · 3h

The Supreme Court’s majority gave no reason for its literal life-and-death decision to wipe out an appeals court order issued earlier today and which was, on its face, intended to be temporary in nature. Sotomayor wrote tonight’s dissent. Order and dissent: www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

The Court's decision to vacate that stay interferes with the Sixth Circuit's routine administrative handling of a capital case and unnecessarily prevents that court from giving due consideration to Pike's claim. Worse, the Court grants such extraordinary relief solely to allow the State to execute Pike before litigation over her conviction has properly run its course in the lower courts. I see no reason to short-circuit the ordinary process of appellate review, particularly in light of the grave consequences of an erroneous de-cision. Tennessee's desire to expedite Pike's execution by a few days or even weeks cannot outweigh her "fundamental

interest in [her] own life." Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U. S. 1,
9 (1985).
In capital cases, "[a]ppreciation of our own fallibility, and respect for the judgment of an appellate tribunal," demand caution before "acting irretrievably." Bowersox v. Williams,
517 U. S. 345, 347 (1996) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting). Indeed, this Court often states that it is "'a court of review, not of first view?" McLane Co. v. EEOC, 581 U.S. 72, 85 (2017) (quoting Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 718, n. 7
(2005)). Today, the Court, as it has too often lately, chooses to overlook that principle precisely when it matters most.

22509134

Supreme 13 @supreme13.org · 5h

"We will not be deterred, because the promise of American democracy demands that every voice is heard, every vote is counted, and every community is fully represented.”

100

Supreme 13 @supreme13.org · 5h

"Democrats believe the right to vote is foundational, and we will continue using every tool available—legislative, political, and moral—to defend voting rights and ensure that all communities have a meaningful voice in the decisions that shape their lives."

100

Supreme 13 @supreme13.org · 5h

“In the wake of the Callais decision, Black political representation has come under direct assault. Republican-led legislatures are moving to dilute Black voting strength, weaken Black representation, and reverse decades of hard-fought civil rights progress secured through the Voting Rights Act."

100

Supreme 13 @supreme13.org · 6h

"I support reforming the Supreme Court, and would be open to a variety of options including term limits and deadlines to confirm new appointments or potential expansion. We need steadfast oversight, not rogue judges who rubber stamp Trump’s authoritarian agenda."

100

Supreme 13 @supreme13.org · 6h

Thank you @julianastratton.bsky.social for your openness to Supreme Court expansion! Read this interview of Illinois U.S. Senate candidate Juliana Stratton by WTTW News: news.wttw.com/elections/vo...

news.wttw.com

Juliana Stratton | 2026 Primary Election

"Illinoisans deserve a leader who will go to the mat fighting for them — I am that fighter."

100

Reposted by Supreme 13

Susan Rinkunas @susanrinkunas.com · 9h

NEW / HUGE: Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama sued nearly three dozen abortion pill providers + a pharmacy and The states asked the Supreme Court to be able to sue New York, Massachusetts, and California to challenge their telehealth shield laws @autonomynews.co storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Dear Mr. Cayce:
I write to notify the panel of two legal developments material to the
panel’s resolution of this case.
First, today Louisiana—joined by Arkansas and Alabama—filed a
lawsuit in the Western District of Louisiana against nearly three dozen
individuals and entities responsible for remotely dispensing FDA-
approved mifepristone in Louisiana, Arkansas, and Alabama. See
Louisiana v. Nouhavandi, No. 2:26-cv-03836 (W.D. La.) (attached). As
the complaint in that case illustrates, none of those individuals and
entities could carry out their current operations without the 2023
REMS’s removal of the in-person dispensing requirement.
Second, also today Louisiana—joined by Arkansas and Alabama—
filed a motion for leave to file a bill of complaint (attached), Louisiana v.
New York, in the United States Supreme Court against New York,
Massachusetts, and California. The bill of complaint challenges the
telehealth shield laws of those states on various legal grounds.
Both complaints explain how Louisiana’s success in Louisiana v.
FDA will eliminate the flood of FDA-approved mifepristone into the
State. Louisiana’s success in Louisiana v. Nouhavandi will eliminate the
2
ability of nearly three dozen of the most prominent actors to illegally send
any abortion drugs into the State. And Louisiana’s success in Louisiana
v. New York will strip all shield-law state residents—regardless of any
back-up drugs they may try to use—of the claimed authority to violate
Louisiana’s laws with impunity.
espectfully,
/s/J. Benjamin Aguiñaga
J. Benjamin Aguiñaga
Solicitor General
Counsel for Louisiana

1273145

Supreme 13 @supreme13.org · 7h

go.bsky.app/ywkXpT

000

Supreme 13 @supreme13.org · 7h

"You're going to expect that I will vote for overhaul to the Supreme Court. That will include binding codes of conduct for our justices. It'll include term limits, and I am open to a discussion about expanding the number of justices."

100

Supreme 13 @supreme13.org · 8h

"But I really wish they wouldn’t bother."

000

Supreme 13 @supreme13.org · 8h

"Republicans could argue that expanding a state supreme court — and expanding the federal one — are radically different things, and thus, that their divergent views on the propriety of each are rooted in neutral principles of just procedure, not political expediency."

100

Supreme 13 @supreme13.org · 8h

Here's your daily reminder that Republicans "packed" the Arizona and Georgia Supreme Courts in 2016 and the Utah Supreme Court in 2026. nymag.com/intelligence... What’s good for the elephant is good for the donkey! #ExpandTheCourt

nymag.com

Republicans Oppose Court Packing (Except When They Support It)

In Georgia and Arizona, conservatives have already done what they denounce Democrats for even contemplating.

100

Supreme 13 @supreme13.org · 9h

"With the Supreme Court’s willingness to overturn Roe vs. Wade, the future of other essential rights is at risk – gay marriage, access to contraception, interracial marriage. It is time for a serious conversation about reforming the Supreme Court . . . ."

100

Supreme 13 @supreme13.org · 9h

"During my time in Congress, I have been focused on multiple ways to protect and strengthen democracy, including stronger ethics requirements for Supreme Court Justices and members of the federal judiciary and expanding the Supreme Court."

100

Reposted by Supreme 13

Eric Segall @espinsegall.bsky.social · 12h

This is as accurate a description of SCOTUS as I’ve seen: bbaumann.substack.com/p/function-w...

bbaumann.substack.com

Function without Myth

Rewatching “The Crown”

273

Supreme 13 @supreme13.org · 11h

"Congress must take action to push back against the corruption that is impeding economic mobility for Black communities with this verdict and the overturning of affirmative action, and take necessary steps to expand the Supreme Court now."

100

Supreme 13 @supreme13.org · 11h

“Today the Supreme Court made the decision to saddle millions of families, a disproportionate number of whom are Black borrowers, with insurmountable debt with no path forward toward reconciliation."

100

Supreme 13 @supreme13.org · 23h

Supreme Court expansion is the subject of a substantial body of legal, academic, historical, and policy research. Supreme 13 is collecting it in one place: supreme13.org/resources/sc...

supreme13.org

Supreme Court Expansion Scholarship and Research | Supreme 13

Explore legal scholarship and academic research on Supreme Court expansion, court reform, judicial power, and the history of changing the Court’s size.

000

Supreme 13 @supreme13.org · 30/09/2026

Want to dig deeper into Supreme Court expansion? Supreme 13 brings together news, commentary, scholarship, interviews, legislation, and other source material on the debate. Explore the evidence: supreme13.org/resources/

supreme13.org

Supreme Court Expansion News and Resources | Supreme 13

Explore Supreme Court expansion resources, including news articles, opinion pieces, legal scholarship, academic research, interviews, and federal legislation.

001

Reposted by Supreme 13

Dan Froomkin/Press Watch/Heads Up News @froomkin.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

This is the compelling, moving, and no-brainer district court ruling the Supreme Court's six Trump acolytes just overturned. District court judges are routinely finding that Trump has violated the law. Then SCOTUS happens. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT MURPHY, J. This case is about whether the Government may, without notice, deport a person to the wrong country, or a country where he is likely to be persecuted, or tortured, thereby depriving that person of the opportunity to seek protections to which he would be undisputedly entitled. The Department of Homeland Security has adopted a policy whereby it may take people and drop them off in parts unknown—in so-called “third countries”—and, “as long as the Department doesn’t already know that there’s someone standing there waiting to shoot . . . that’s fine.”1 It is not fine, nor is it legal. Congress made it “the policy of the United States not to expel, extradite, or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any person to a country” where that “person would be in danger of being subjected to torture.”2 Congress decided that the Government “may not remove” someone to a country where her “life or freedom would be threatened” on account of

her “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”3 These are our laws, and it is with profound gratitude for the unbelievable luck of being born in the United States of America that this Court affirms these and our nation’s bedrock principle: that no “person” in this country may be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

811345

Supreme 13 @supreme13.org · 30/09/2026

Absolutely right! Understanding that these decisions are based on political ideology and not legal philosophy is an early step on the way to understanding that the only answer is Supreme Court expansion.

010

Reposted by Supreme 13

Greg Greene (he/him/his) @greene.haus · 29/09/2026

To quote a @chrislhayes.bsky.social jape at the Roberts Court: "They go fast when they want to go fast and slow when they want to go to slow and the decision is *always* an ideological one."

Steve Vladeck, a professor a Georgetown Law, writes up breaking developments from the Supreme Court. The last post in the three-post thread is the kicker, for our purpose here.

"#BREAKING: Over dissents from the three Democratic appointees, #SCOTUS grants a stay in the third-country removals case; clears way for Trump admin. to continue removing non-citizens without a full chance to litigate the conditions in those countries (while also taking up the full merits appeal).

"Link: [URL of a supremecourt.gov PDF]

"By my math, the order was filed 11 minutes after the Trump administration's reply brief came in."

6408103

Supreme 13 @supreme13.org · 30/09/2026

"I would definitely be willing to add more people to the court because the way the rules are right now, we have people on there for a lifetime that are making the wrong decisions for everyday people."

100

Supreme 13 @supreme13.org · 29/09/2026

Thanks for your ongoing advocacy for Supreme Court expansion! Your May 1, 2023 piece, It's Time to Expand the Supreme Court, and your August 22, 2024 piece, Reform the Supreme Court or Bow to MAGA in @theprogressivemag.bsky.social (both linked below) can be found here: supreme13.org/resources/op...

supreme13.org

Supreme Court Expansion Opinion and Commentary | Supreme 13

Read opinion essays and commentary supporting, analyzing, and debating Supreme Court expansion, including its political and democratic implications.

100

Supreme 13 @supreme13.org · 29/09/2026

"The proposed legislation is necessary in addition to other significant reforms to the Supreme Court and judiciary, including term limits, expanding the Court, and enforcing a code of ethics."

100

Supreme 13 @supreme13.org · 29/09/2026

"To regain the American people’s trust in our courts, Congress must pass rigorous, binding statutory guardrails that ensure no federal judge can operate above the ethical standards expected of other public servants."

100