Supreme Court Backs Bankruptcy Trustee In Time-Limited Void Challenge-0311
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that federal courts must apply a time limit when a party seeks to challenge a judgment as void under federal procedural rules, settling a long-running dispute among lower courts.
In Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited Inc. v. Burton, the justices affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit’s 2024 decision, holding that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) requires motions to vacate even allegedly void judgments to be filed within a “reasonable time.”
The case arose after Coney Island Auto Parts, a Brooklyn-area company, sought to overturn a default judgment entered against it in 2015, arguing that it was never properly served. The bankruptcy court and federal district court denied the challenge on timeliness grounds, a ruling the Sixth Circuit upheld.
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court, emphasized that the plain text of Rule 60(c)(1) — which states that a motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time — applies to motions asserting that a judgment is void. Under the court’s interpretation, the rule’s structure and language foreclose treating void judgments as exempt from timing requirements.
The decision resolves a split among federal appeals courts, with most circuits holding that no time limit applies to void-judgment challenges because such judgments are legally null from the start, while only a minority of circuits, like the Sixth, requiring prompt action.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted during oral arguments that determining whether a judgment is truly void can be complex, and the court’s ruling leaves procedural mechanisms in place to balance finality with fairness.
The ruling is expected to influence civil litigation practice nationwide by reinforcing procedural deadlines for reopening final judgments, even when jurisdictional defects are alleged.
The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, struck down the tariffs on Friday, ruling that Trump lacked the statutory authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to implement broad trade penalties without explicit congressional authorization.
The case has drawn significant attention as a legal rebuke of a key element of the administration’s trade policy.
Vice President JD Vance sharply criticized the Supreme Court decision, calling the ruling “lawlessness” in a social media post on Friday.
In a post on X, Vance said the court’s interpretation “decided that Congress, despite giving the president the ability to ‘regulate imports,’ didn’t actually mean it,” and described the ruling as “lawlessness from the Court, plain and simple.”
“And its only effect will be to make it harder for the president to protect American industries and supply chain resiliency.”
He added, “President Trump has a wide range of other tariff powers, and he will use them to defend American workers and advance this administration’s trade priorities.”
The Supreme Court’s ruling marked a setback for the administration’s signature tariff strategy, which had aimed to address trade imbalances and strengthen domestic production.
Trump responded to the decision by criticizing the court and signaling plans to pursue alternative legal avenues for trade measures.
The tariffs had targeted goods from a broad range of U.S. trading partners and were central to the White House’s economic agenda. The ruling upheld the constitutional principle that significant tariff authority lies with Congress, according to the court’s majority opinion.
Trump stated that the ruling still provided his administration considerable latitude to increase tariffs using other authorities, referencing a line he credited to Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s dissent.
George Washington University Law School professor and legal scholar Jonathan Turley agreed that this isn’t over.
The administration can still impose tariffs through other statutes.
“The administration has other tools in its toolbox. It can actually impose tariffs under other statutes,” Turley said, adding that there’s plenty of runway for the Trump White House in this area of economic policy.
Spencer Pratt EXPOSED LA’s Biggest Problem LIVE ON AIR… and The View Completely LOST IT! What was supposed to be another harmless celebrity interview on The View suddenly turned into one of the most uncomfortable political moments television has seen in months. Spencer Pratt walked onto the stage as a former reality TV star, but by the time the segment ended, viewers across the country were asking why he sounded more connected to everyday life in Los Angeles than the people challenging him. The conversation quickly shifted away from celebrity gossip and exploded into arguments about homelessness, drugs, crime, media narratives, and the visible collapse many residents say they experience daily in California cities. Then came the AI ad controversy, the viral comments about human waste in LA, and the moment even the hosts appeared caught off guard by how strongly audiences were reacting online. Now people are wondering whether this interview accidentally exposed something much bigger than one mayoral race. Read the full story below in the comments. - Trends.newsonline.biz
Spencer Pratt walked onto The View looking like exactly the kind of guest the hosts assumed they could easily handle.
A former reality television personality from The Hills running for mayor of Los Angeles sounded, on paper, like the perfect lighthearted daytime television segment.
A few jokes, some playful skepticism, maybe a quick conversation about celebrity culture, and then everybody moves on.
That was clearly the expectation. Instead, the interview spiraled into something completely different. Because within minutes, the atmosphere shifted from entertainment to genuine political discomfort.
The hosts initially approached Pratt with the familiar mixture of amusement and disbelief often reserved for celebrities entering politics.
Questions about his financial struggles, reality television fame, and lack of political experience came quickly.
But Pratt never tried to present himself as a polished politician. That changed the dynamic immediately.
Instead of sounding scripted, he sounded frustrated. Not celebrity frustrated. Citizen frustrated. And that emotional difference mattered far more than many people expected.
Pratt explained that he never intended to become politically active. For years, he largely avoided public political battles entirely.
According to him, the turning point came after wildfires devastated parts of Los Angeles, including the loss of his own home.
That transformed the conversation emotionally. Because suddenly this was no longer a reality TV personality playing politics for attention.
This became someone speaking from personal anger after watching what he believed was catastrophic government failure.
And viewers connected with that instantly. Pratt repeatedly framed his campaign around what he described as “common sense” issues facing ordinary Los Angeles residents.
Crime, homelessness, drug addiction, public disorder, deteriorating infrastructure, and basic safety concerns became the focus of nearly everything he discussed.
Then the conversation intensified. Pratt began describing conditions throughout parts of Los Angeles in blunt detail.
Human waste on sidewalks. Fentanyl needles near parks. Drug addicts roaming around schools. Public disorder becoming normalized in neighborhoods where families once felt safe.
The room noticeably tightened. Because regardless of political ideology, millions of Americans have already seen similar footage circulating online for years.
Videos of open drug use, theft, homeless encampments, and collapsing public order have dominated social media discussions surrounding California cities.
Pratt simply described those realities directly on national television. And emotionally, that landed much harder than many expected.
The hosts attempted pushing back by questioning his qualifications and political experience. But Pratt immediately flipped the criticism back toward establishment leadership.
When questioned about lacking a law degree or city management experience, Pratt sarcastically joked about earning legal credentials online before pointing out that Karen Bass herself had never previously managed a city before becoming mayor.
The exchange resonated online because Pratt did not sound like a polished political strategist trying to win an argument.
He sounded authentic. Messy at times, certainly. But authentic. And in modern politics, authenticity often matters more emotionally than perfect credentials.
That became increasingly obvious as the interview continued. The biggest turning point may have come when Pratt discussed how ordinary residents are reacting to conditions in Los Angeles.
He described even lifelong Democrats becoming frustrated after personally experiencing the city’s visible decline. One story in particular exploded online afterward.
Pratt described his sister accidentally driving through human waste in Los Angeles and being unable to remove the smell from her car despite repeated cleanings.
The story sounded absurd enough to become instantly memorable. But that was exactly why it spread so rapidly.
Pratt communicated through vivid personal imagery rather than policy jargon. People could immediately picture the situation because many viewers had already experienced similar moments themselves or seen comparable footage online.
That emotional relatability made his comments far more powerful than traditional political talking points. Meanwhile, the hosts appeared increasingly uncomfortable as the audience reaction online grew stronger.
At several moments, the panel attempted balancing criticism of Pratt while simultaneously acknowledging public frustration with conditions in Los Angeles.
That contradiction became noticeable. One moment Pratt was dismissed as a reality TV celebrity lacking qualifications.
The next moment, hosts admitted many residents genuinely feel unsafe or frustrated with visible deterioration across parts of California cities.
Viewers immediately noticed the inconsistency. And that inconsistency fueled much of the viral reaction afterward.
The interview escalated even further once discussion turned toward artificial intelligence campaign advertisements Pratt had shared online.
The ads used AI-generated comic-book imagery featuring political figures and exaggerated dystopian themes criticizing California leadership.
Critics labeled the ads dangerous, misleading, and inflammatory. But many viewers reacted very differently. Online audiences began mocking what they perceived as establishment media becoming more emotionally disturbed by AI-generated memes than by actual urban decline visible across major cities.
That comparison quickly spiraled into broader criticism of media credibility itself. People began reposting old clips from 2020 showing reporters standing in front of burning buildings during riots while describing events as “mostly peaceful.”
Those comparisons intensified accusations of media double standards. To many viewers, establishment media figures appeared willing to minimize real-world disorder while simultaneously treating exaggerated political memes as major threats.
Whether fair or unfair, that perception deeply shaped online reaction to the interview. And perception matters enormously in modern politics.
Because once audiences begin believing media institutions selectively frame outrage depending on ideological convenience, trust erodes rapidly.
That erosion of trust became one of the central emotional themes surrounding Pratt’s appearance. At multiple points, even the hosts themselves seemed unsure how aggressively to challenge him without appearing disconnected from realities many viewers already believe exiSt.
That tension became visible. And the more visible it became, the stronger Pratt’s anti-establishment image grew online.
Ironically, attempts to portray him as unserious often strengthened his appeal instead. Especially among frustrated voters exhausted by carefully scripted political language and media narratives they no longer trust completely.
Pratt also benefited from sounding unusually direct compared to traditional politicians. He criticized leaders for prioritizing press conferences, rhetoric, and ideological branding while ordinary residents increasingly worry about basic quality-of-life issues.
His argument was simple. People want safe parks. Functioning streets. Clean neighborhoods. Responsive emergency services.
And many feel local governments have failed to provide those basics despite enormous tax burdens.
That message cuts across ideological lines more effectively than many traditional partisan arguments. Which explains why the interview spread far beyond normal celebrity gossip audiences.
This stopped being about Spencer Pratt specifically. Instead, he increasingly became a symbol for something much larger: frustration with political institutions, distrust toward media narratives, anger over visible urban decline, and exhaustion with ideological battles replacing practical governance.
That emotional undercurrent explains why the segment resonated so strongly online. Millions of viewers did not suddenly become passionate Spencer Pratt supporters overnight.
But many recognized something emotionally familiar in what he described. And perhaps most importantly, many viewers believed he was speaking honestly rather than strategically.
That distinction matters tremendously in modern political culture. Especially during a time when large portions of the public increasingly view politicians, media personalities, and institutions as scripted, artificial, or disconnected from ordinary life.
By the end of the interview, the original premise had completely collapsed. What was supposed to be a harmless celebrity segment accidentally became one of the most viral political media moments of the year.
Not because Spencer Pratt dominated through traditional political skill. But because millions of Americans quietly saw pieces of their own frustrations reflected in what he said.
And judging by the reaction afterward, establishment media figures may have underestimated just how powerful that frustration has become.
