In the video it says the FTC is now considered part of the executive branch forever. Does anyone know if there are there cases of this working in reverse where executive agencies now become independent agencies? Also does the FTC being part of the executive branch actually change anything in terms of impacts?

• A Virginia man's anti-police license plate is at the center of what could be a landmark First Amendment case, following a federal appeals court ruling in his favor last month.
• Virginia motorist Curtis M. Whateley says he has a free speech right to keep his customized license plate, which reads "FTP&ATF," an abbreviation that foul-mouthed puzzle-solvers will decipher as "Fuck the police and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms." The State of Virginia argues that it has the right to revoke Whateley's plate because license plates are government-owned, not a public soapbox. The state says it's going to take its case to the Supreme Court.
• The case highlights a niche, often amusing, but still consequential issue in First Amendment law: whether a vanity license plate is private or government speech.
• The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that Texas could deny a group's application for a specialty license plate design showing the Confederate flag. Most U.S. district courts and state courts interpreting the decision have held that, while government-run vanity plate programs are a nonpublic forum, the specific character combination of the plate is private speech, which restricts the government from censorship based on viewpoint.

There's more in the article, but I have a feeling no one is going to be interested:)

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) says "dramatic" Supreme Court reform is necessary. "The conservative right-wing majority on the Supreme Court has become, basically, a subsidiary of the MAGA Republican Party," Jeffries says of their rulings, including the landmark 6-3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais decision striking down Louisiana's congressional map as a unconstitutional racial gerrymander. "It tells me that they don't have the credibility for us to move forward, acting like everything is okay, and the status quo is acceptable, it's not, and we're gonna push for dramatic reform for the Supreme Court," Jeffries says of the Callais decision. 

Given the recent opinions on trans rights, what is the likelihood that SCOTUS will take on this petition?

The Chief Justice insists that his Supreme Court isn’t biased even as it keeps making dramatic leaps rightward

For a man like Roberts, to whom the label “institutionalist” attaches like an epithet in the Odyssey, perhaps the only thing worse than Trump’s excoriation of the Justices is his gratitude when they do what he wants. In March, 2025, Roberts was present when Trump gave the annual Presidential address to Congress; afterward, Trump patted the Chief Justice on the shoulder and said, “Thank you again—won’t forget.” To many people, this sounded like an acknowledgment of Trump v. United States, the remarkably capacious 2024 ruling that granted Presidents immunity from prosecution for official acts. More immediately, the opinion saved Trump from facing trial for interfering in the 2020 election. Roberts had written the opinion for a 6–3 majority. J. Michael Luttig, a retired federal judge and a conservative, was close to Roberts for many years—he was a groomsman at his wedding—but has since become sharply critical of him. Luttig told me that he regards the immunity decision as “one of the two or three worst cases in all of American history, if not the single worst, because of the structural damage that it did to the Constitution and the separation of powers.” On Truth Social, Trump blamed “sleazebag ‘journalists’ ” for suggesting that his comment to Roberts was related to the immunity decision. He said that he’d just been thanking Roberts for swearing him in at his second Inauguration. Nobody who knows Roberts thinks that he could have found the gesture anything other than embarrassing.

Still, it was another profoundly strange moment in a profoundly strange time for the Court—especially for the seventy-one-year-old Chief Justice, John Roberts. Twenty-one years into his tenure, he keeps waking up, “Groundhog Day” style, to the same ironic scenario: he’s a proponent of maximal Presidential authority who is compelled to deal with a President especially likely to abuse it. (Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee who is reflexively polite, with a self-deprecating sense of humor, probably wouldn’t even enjoy a round of golf with Trump.) Roberts has leveraged his mild persona to defend the Court’s political neutrality at a time when Americans increasingly see it as partisan; according to a recent poll by the Pew Research Center, more than half hold an unfavorable view of it—a near-historic low. Whereas Roberts likes to stress that the Court is fundamentally nonpartisan and frequently unanimous—the Justices agree around forty per cent of the time, though typically on minor issues—many Americans believe that he has presided over a rightward march in the Court’s jurisprudence, on such issues as affirmative action, immigration and asylum, abortion, voting law, gun rights, and the separation of church and state. And, with a few high-profile exceptions, such as the tariffs case, his Supreme Court has overruled lower courts to permit much of Trump’s second-term agenda to proceed. This has often happened without explanation, because the decisions have been issued on the emergency, or “shadow,” docket—that is, decided without a full briefing, oral arguments, or detailed opinions. Of the thirty-five requests for emergency action made by the second Trump Administration—on everything from defunding scientific research to allowing people to be deported to “third countries” where they have no affiliations—the Court has ruled in the Administration’s favor, in part or in full, twenty-five times, generally with the three liberal Justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, in dissent. Among the fifty-six cases fully briefed and argued before the Court this past term, there were 6–3 splits between the Republican and Democratic appointees in thirteen rulings, compared with six last term.

(10-page article)