{"id":532,"date":"2026-08-18T13:12:39","date_gmt":"2026-08-18T13:12:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=532"},"modified":"2026-08-18T13:12:39","modified_gmt":"2026-08-18T13:12:39","slug":"trump-v-carroll-and-the-ten-commandments","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=532","title":{"rendered":"Trump v. Carroll and the Ten Commandments"},"content":{"rendered":"

This month marks 40 years since the Senate considered Antonin Scalia\u2019s nomination to the Supreme Court. Look to the Morning Reads section for a column from Christopher J. Scalia, one of the justice\u2019s sons, about what that summer was like.<\/p>

Read more Texas families ask Supreme Court to take up challenge to Ten Commandments in schools<\/a><\/p>

Plus, on Thursday, our friends at Briefly are hosting a LinkedIn Live event with Dan Haley, the chief legal officer for Flock Safety. Among other topics, they will address the Supreme Court\u2019s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.<\/p>

At the Court<\/h2>

On Monday, the court released the of its three summer order lists and announced that it had denied President Donald Trump\u2019s request to reconsider a $5 million verdict against him in a case brought by E. Jean Carroll. For more on Monday\u2019s order list, see the On Site section below.<\/p><\/div><\/div>

Also on Monday, lawyers for a group of Texas families with children in the state\u2019s public schools urged the justices to weigh in on the constitutionality of a 2025 law that requires each classroom in that state to display a copy of the Ten Commandments. For an overview of the dispute, see Amy\u2019s coverage in the On Site section.<\/p><\/div><\/div>

On Friday, the Trump administration urged the Supreme Court to pause a lower-court ruling that would halt construction of a new White House ballroom. A response to this request from the private nonprofit that challenged the construction project is due today by noon EDT.<\/p><\/div><\/div>

On July 27, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on its emergency docket to clear the way for the implementation of President Donald Trump\u2019s executive order on mail-in voting. Twelve states later echoed this request in their own application. One week later, the group of 23 states and the District of Columbia challenging the order the court to deny these requests. Last Wednesday, the Trump administration the court to \u201cpromptly\u201d issue its decision.<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

Morning Reads<\/h2>

Trump says White House needs \u2018military complex\u2019 as courts block his ballroom<\/h3>

Dan Diamond, The Washington Post<\/svg><\/span><\/p>

As the Supreme Court considers the Trump administration\u2019s emergency docket request on construction of a new White House ballroom, administration officials, including President Donald Trump, are playing up the project\u2019s supposed \u201ccrucial\u201d role in national security. Trump has argued \u201cthat the ballroom is necessary to protect him and future presidents. He and his lawyers have contended that the ballroom is inseparable from the underground military complex,\u201d the construction of which was not put on hold by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, according to The Washington Post. Meanwhile, \u201cDemocrats, preservationists and other critics of the ballroom have said that arguments over the president\u2019s security should remain separate from questions about whether Trump had the authority to demolish the East Wing, solicit hundreds of millions of dollars in private donations and begin building a 90,000-square-foot ballroom addition without getting approval from Congress.\u201d<\/p><\/div><\/div>

Attorney General Todd Blanche says DOJ may take states\u2019 voter roll fight to Supreme Court<\/h3>

Alexandra Marquez, NBC News<\/p>

During a Sunday appearance on NBC News\u2019 \u201cMeet the Press,\u201d Attorney General Todd Blanche said \u201cthere\u2019s a \u2018possibility\u2019 that the Justice Department will ask the Supreme Court to intervene in dozens of cases in which judges have ruled against the federal government\u2019s efforts to gain broad access to state voter rolls ahead of November\u2019s midterm elections.\u201d \u201cThe cases stem from an executive order Trump signed asking states to turn over their voter rolls, including voters\u2019 names, dates of birth, residential addresses, state driver\u2019s licenses and the last four digits of their Social Security numbers,\u201d in order to \u201callow the Justice Department to investigate any \u2018deficiencies\u2019 or \u2018anomalies.\u2019\u201d Some states voluntarily provided access to their voter rolls, but \u201cthe Justice Department has sued 30 states and Washington, D.C., for refusing to comply.\u201d Those lawsuits have been unsuccessful so far. On Sunday, Blanche said that \u201cthe idea that the Department of Justice is trying to investigate issues around elections to make sure they\u2019re fair … is not something that we should be running away from. That\u2019s something we should be running right towards.\u201d<\/p><\/div><\/div>

One Crazy Summer<\/h3>

Christopher J. Scalia, National Review<\/p>

In a column for the National Review, Justice Antonin Scalia\u2019s son, Christopher J. Scalia, shared memories from his father\u2019s confirmation hearings, which took place 40 years ago this month. He described attending the first part of the questioning alongside his eight siblings. \u201cThe extent of our media training was my mother introducing us to the concept of hot mics \u2013 her way of warning us to behave ourselves. Did we want C-SPAN to broadcast our sibling squabbles and stupid jokes,\u201d Scalia wrote. He added that his father\u2019s new job did little to change their family\u2019s life, noting how strange that must sound today, when not just justices, but their kids, face scrutiny and security threats. \u201cThe nomination and hearings were remarkable events in what otherwise felt like a normal summer of riding my BMX bike with friends, reading box scores, watching reruns, and trying to get infinite lives in Super Mario Bros.\u201d<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

On Site<\/h2>
Court News<\/span>

Court turns down Trump\u2019s request to reconsider its refusal to hear Carroll suit against him <\/h3>

By Amy Howe<\/p>

The Supreme Court on Monday morning turned down President Donald Trump\u2019s request to reconsider the justices\u2019 denial of review in a civil suit brought by journalist E. Jean Carroll, which yielded a $5 million verdict against the president. Consistent with its general practice, the court did not provide any explanation for its decision to deny Trump\u2019s petition for rehearing in Trump v. Carroll. The court rarely grants such petitions; indeed, it has not done so since 2018.<\/p><\/div>

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
Court News<\/span>

Texas families ask Supreme Court to take up challenge to Ten Commandments in schools<\/h3>

By Amy Howe<\/p>

Lawyers for a group of Texas families with children in public schools asked the justices to review a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit that upheld a 2025 Texas law that requires each classroom in that state to display a copy of the Ten Commandments. The challengers told the justices that the lower court \u201cflouted this Court\u2019s binding precedents and gutted the religious-freedom rights of public-school children and parents.\u201d<\/p><\/div>

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
Contributor Corner<\/span>

Who is Justice Barrett?<\/h3>

By Adam Feldman<\/p>

In his Empirical SCOTUS column, Adam Feldman analyzed Justice Amy Coney Barrett\u2019s approach to her work, including the circumstances in which she \u201cis most likely to break ranks\u201d with other conservative justices. \u201cBarrett begins from recognizable conservative and originalist premises. But she separately tests whether the court\u2019s reasoning and remedy are commensurate with the text, precedent, history, record, and procedural vehicle before it,\u201d Feldman wrote.<\/p><\/div>

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
Contributor Corner<\/span>

SCOTUS litigator Floyd Abrams at 90<\/h3>

By Ronald Collins<\/p>

For his In Other Words column, Ronald Collins focused on Floyd Abrams, a prominent First Amendment lawyer whose \u201cname is synonymous with freedom of speech and the press.\u201d Now 90, \u201cAbrams shows few signs of slowing down as he moves towards the century mark,\u201d according to Collins.<\/p><\/div>

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
A Closer Look<\/div>

Joseph Lochner<\/h3><\/div>

Continuing our series of Closer Looks on some of the Supreme Court’s most well-known litigants, we turn to Joseph Lochner, the plaintiff in 1905\u2019s <\/em>Lochner v. New York. The case became the defining decision of the so-called <\/em>\u201cLochner era,<\/em>\u201d a period in which the Supreme Court frequently invalidated economic regulations on constitutional due process grounds.<\/em><\/p>

Read more Court turns down Trump\u2019s request to reconsider its refusal to hear Carroll suit against him<\/a><\/p>

Joseph Lochner immigrated from Bavaria, Germany, to the United States at the age of 20, in 1882. Lochner settled in Utica, New York, which was a popular destination for many European immigrants from around 1880 to 1930.<\/p>

In his first eight years in the U.S., Lochner worked at a bakery in Utica. Around 1890, he opened his own small, family bakeshop in town. The Observer described the bakery as such \u201ca small place \u2026 that it is remarkable that it was ever discovered by the people who are now its patrons.\u201d According to the paper, his bakery was well received by \u201chousewives\u201d for the \u201cneatness\u201d and \u201cexcellence\u201d of the products and became \u201cone of the best known [neighborhood] enterprises.\u201d But in 1894, the Trades Union Label League started a boycott targeting Lochner\u2019s bakery, in part because he allowed bakers to live with him and he hired non-union workers.<\/p>

As Lochner was establishing himself as a presence in Utica\u2019s bakery industry, efforts across the state emerged to regulate the conditions of bakery workers. In 1893, Edward Marshall, a muckraker, published an article detailing the unsanitary nature and atrocious working conditions in New York bakeries. A report in 1895 by New York factory inspectors affirmed Marshall\u2019s report, finding many bakeries were filled with insects and rats.<\/p>

In response to these reports, efforts to regulate the bakery industry, including through maximum work hour laws, gained support. Labor unions believed that limiting the number of hours a baker could work would improve workers\u2019 health and raise wages. Additionally, with many unionized bakery jobs already curbing the total time their employees could be on the job, the unions wanted to reduce competition from non-unionized bakery workers, who they believed reduced their wages.<\/p>

The Bakeshop Act, which limited biscuit, cake, and bread bakers from working more than 10 hours a day or 60 hours a week, was unanimously passed by both houses of the New York state legislature and signed into law by Gov. Levi P. Morton in 1895. The New York Association of Master Bakers, a trade group made up of independent bakeries, believed that the act was being weaponized by labor unions to punish non-union bakeries. At the organization\u2019s 1901 and 1902 conference, they pledged to bring a test case, challenging the constitutionality of the law, all the way to the Supreme Court.<\/p>

Lochner, who was a member of the New York Association of Master Bakers, was an ideal plaintiff for the association: he was on friendly terms with his employees and worked alongside them. In 1899, Lochner was charged with violating The Bakeshop Act after he allowed an employee to work more than 10 hours to learn cakemaking. He was fined $25. In 1902, Lochner was again charged with violating the act after allowing an employee, Aman Schmitter, to work more than 60 hours in a week.<\/p>

Lochner\u2019s attorney sought to get the charges dismissed on a technicality, but those efforts were unsuccessful. The case then went to trial in 1903 where Lochner declined to plead guilty and intentionally raised no defense in an attempt to help create a vehicle for a test case for appeal. In a 3-2 decision, the New York Appellate Division upheld Lochner\u2019s conviction. In doing so, the court rejected Lochner\u2019s argument that the act violated the doctrine of \u201cclass legislation,\u201d which held that policies could not favor a specific group in economic regulations under the Constitution\u2019s 14th Amendment. Lochner\u2019s appeal to the highest court in the state, the New York Court of Appeals, also proved unsuccessful.<\/p>

The New York Association of Master Bakers then appealed the case to the Supreme Court. In what was seen at the time as a surprising decision, the Supreme Court sided with Lochner 5-4 in April of 1905. \u201cThe general right to make a contract in relation to his business is part of the liberty of the individual protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution,\u201d and \u201c[t]he right to purchase or to sell labor is part of the liberty protected by this amendment\u201d wrote Justice Rufus Peckham in his majority opinion. In dissent, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes skewered the majority for trying to implement their preferred economic model, writing that \u201ca Constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory.\u201d<\/p>

The decision in Lochner<\/em> became the defining case in the Supreme Court\u2019s Lochner<\/em> era, in which the court struck down economic regulations, including state minimum wage laws and parts of President Franklin D. Roosevelt\u2019s \u201cNew Deal.\u201d The Lochner<\/em> era is generally considered to have ended when the court upheld Washington\u2019s minimum wage law for women in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish<\/em> in 1937.<\/p>

Today, Lochner<\/em> is often criticized by legal scholars as an example of the court engaging in judicial activism to promote business rights. Chief Justice John Roberts himself described the case as an example of the court \u201cnot interpreting the law, [but] making the law.” (That said, the decision is not without its defenders.)<\/p>

After the case was decided, Lochner returned to private life and continued to run his bakery. A 1909 advertisement for this business ran in The Utica Observer promoting \u201cfresh macaroons and lady fingers.\u201d That same year, The Observer reported that Lochner and his son visited Germany. Another advertisement from Lochner ran in 1911 that wished his customers a \u201cMerry [Christmas] and a Happy New Year.\u201d It is not known what ultimately happened to Lochner\u2019s bakery or when Lochner passed away.<\/p><\/div><\/div>

SCOTUS Quote<\/h2>

MR. FREDERICK: \u201c\u2026 With Aereo\u2019s technology, if I\u2019m making a copy using Aereo\u2019s system, no one else can look at it. Even if you happen to have watched the same program, you can\u2019t watch my copy, I can\u2019t download it.\u201d<\/p>

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: \u201cThat’s just saying your copy is different from my copy.\u201d<\/p>

MR. FREDERICK: \u201cCorrect.\u201d<\/p>

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: \u201cBut that’s the reason we call them copies, because they’re the same.\u201d<\/p>

Read more SCOTUS litigator Floyd Abrams at 90<\/a><\/p>

\u2014 \u00a0(2014)<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Plus, the role of national security in the White House ballroom battle<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":17,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[22,4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-532","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-contributor-corner","category-newsletter"],"yoast_head":"\nTrump v. Carroll and the Ten Commandments - American Service Review<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=532\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Trump v. Carroll and the Ten Commandments - American Service Review\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Plus, the role of national security in the White House ballroom battle\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=532\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"American Service Review\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-08-18T13:12:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/16b4b0a171bb5077a9cb40d670b92ef0.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2000\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1333\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=532#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=532\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\"},\"headline\":\"Trump v. Carroll and the Ten Commandments\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-18T13:12:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=532\"},\"wordCount\":2257,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=532#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Contributor Corner\",\"Newsletter\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=532#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=532\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=532\",\"name\":\"Trump v. Carroll and the Ten Commandments - American Service Review\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=532#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=532#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-18T13:12:39+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=532#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=532\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=532#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg\",\"width\":1200,\"height\":627},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=532#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Trump v. Carroll and the Ten Commandments\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/\",\"name\":\"American Service Review\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?author=1\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Trump v. Carroll and the Ten Commandments - American Service Review","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=532","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Trump v. Carroll and the Ten Commandments - American Service Review","og_description":"Plus, the role of national security in the White House ballroom battle","og_url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=532","og_site_name":"American Service Review","article_published_time":"2026-08-18T13:12:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2000,"height":1333,"url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/16b4b0a171bb5077a9cb40d670b92ef0.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=532#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=532"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb"},"headline":"Trump v. Carroll and the Ten Commandments","datePublished":"2026-08-18T13:12:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=532"},"wordCount":2257,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=532#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg","articleSection":["Contributor Corner","Newsletter"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=532#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=532","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=532","name":"Trump v. Carroll and the Ten Commandments - American Service Review","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=532#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=532#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg","datePublished":"2026-08-18T13:12:39+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=532#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=532"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=532#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg","width":1200,"height":627},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=532#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Trump v. Carroll and the Ten Commandments"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/","name":"American Service Review","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/americanservicereview.com"],"url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?author=1"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/532","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=532"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/532\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/17"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=532"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=532"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=532"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}