Supreme Court Declines Trump Appeal in Carroll Case, Considers Texas Ten Commandments Law

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Monday denied a request from former President Donald Trump to reconsider its refusal to review a $5 million verdict against him in a civil suit brought by journalist E. Jean Carroll. The court did not provide a reason for its decision, consistent with its typical practice for such denials.

Also on Monday, attorneys representing Texas families with children in public schools urged the Supreme Court to examine the constitutionality of a 2025 state law. This law requires each classroom in Texas public schools to display a copy of the Ten Commandments. The challenge seeks to overturn a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit that upheld the law.

In other court developments, the Trump administration on Friday asked the Supreme Court to temporarily halt a lower-court ruling. This ruling would prevent construction of a new White House ballroom. A private nonprofit organization challenging the construction project has a response due today by noon EDT.

On July 27, the Trump administration also requested the Supreme Court on its emergency docket to allow the implementation of President Donald Trump’s executive order on mail-in voting. Twelve states later supported this request. One week after that, a group of 23 states and the District of Columbia challenging the order asked the court to deny these requests. The Trump administration then urged the court on Wednesday to issue a decision promptly.

Separately, Attorney General Todd Blanche stated on NBC News’ “Meet the Press” that the Justice Department may seek Supreme Court intervention in cases where lower courts have ruled against federal efforts to access state voter rolls. These cases originate from a Trump executive order requesting states provide voter data to investigate election “deficiencies.” The Justice Department has sued 30 states and Washington, D.C., for not complying with the request, with those lawsuits proving unsuccessful to date.

**Historical Context: Joseph Lochner and the 'Lochner Era'**

Joseph Lochner, a Bavarian immigrant, became the plaintiff in the 1905 Supreme Court case *Lochner v. New York*. This case defined the “Lochner era,” a period where the Supreme Court often invalidated economic regulations based on constitutional due process. Lochner, who owned a bakery in Utica, New York, was charged with violating New York’s Bakeshop Act, which limited bakers to a 10-hour workday or 60-hour work week.

Lochner’s attorney intentionally created a test case to challenge the law’s constitutionality. The New York Association of Master Bakers, of which Lochner was a member, supported this challenge, believing the act was aimed at non-union bakeries. After lower courts upheld Lochner’s conviction, the case reached the Supreme Court. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court sided with Lochner, stating that the law infringed upon the “liberty of the individual” to contract. Justice Rufus Peckham wrote the majority opinion. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in dissent, argued the Constitution was not meant to embody a specific economic theory.

The *Lochner* decision served as a precedent for the court to strike down economic regulations, including state minimum wage laws and elements of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “New Deal.” This era concluded with the 1937 *West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish* decision, which upheld Washington’s minimum wage law for women.

Joseph Lochner continued operating his bakery after the Supreme Court ruling. Records indicate he and his son visited Germany in 1909. His bakery advertised “fresh macaroons and lady fingers” in 1909 and extended holiday greetings in 1911. Details regarding the ultimate fate of his bakery or his passing are not available.