During Supreme Court arguments concerning birthright citizenship, Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned the Trump administration’s legal strategy, challenging the solicitor general’s assertion that expedited legal challenges were impossible. This sharp questioning, defending Justice Kagan’s concerns, directly contradicted the Trump administration’s position and sparked significant backlash from MAGA supporters. Her actions were interpreted as undermining conservative goals and prompted online accusations of disloyalty and calls for her removal from the Supreme Court. The case itself centers on the legality of a Trump executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship, a right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
Read More
President Trump, in a series of Truth Social posts, vehemently attacked birthright citizenship, labeling the U.S. as “stupid” and its citizens as “suckers,” while the Supreme Court considered a case challenging the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of citizenship to those born within U.S. borders. Trump’s claims falsely narrowed the 14th Amendment’s historical context to solely encompass the children of slaves, ignoring its broader application and established legal precedent. Despite this, the 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, overturned the Dred Scott decision and has been consistently interpreted to include children of immigrants, as affirmed by the 1898 Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case. The Supreme Court is now tasked with resolving the conflict between Trump’s executive order and longstanding legal interpretation.
Read More
Following a Supreme Court setback regarding his administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan migrants, President Trump vehemently criticized the court on Truth Social, claiming that preventing the deportation of alleged criminals would destroy the nation. He sought Supreme Court approval for the deportation of nearly 200 Venezuelan migrants detained in Texas, referring to them as “murderers” and “criminals.” Public opinion on Trump’s immigration policies remains divided, with recent polls showing fluctuating levels of approval. The Supreme Court is also set to hear arguments on Trump’s executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship.
Read More
Chief Justice Roberts warned Georgetown law students that the rule of law is under threat, citing recent attacks against Supreme Court justices as exceeding acceptable criticism. He emphasized the rarity of the rule of law globally and historically, while acknowledging that criticism of court decisions is beneficial, provided it remains focused on legal arguments rather than personal attacks. Roberts’ comments followed attacks on justices, including Amy Coney Barrett, by President Trump and his allies, who have disregarded court rulings and even called for impeachment of judges. This behavior prompted a rare statement from Roberts defending the judiciary’s independence.
Read More
During a Senate hearing, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem defended the Trump administration’s deportation policies, facing accusations from Democratic senators of illegally deporting U.S. citizens and legal residents. Noem cited a decrease in illegal border crossings as evidence of successful enforcement, while Democrats criticized the administration’s actions regarding specific cases, including the deportation of a U.S. resident and the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. The hearing centered on the DHS’s proposed $175 billion budget request, intended to bolster border security measures and enforcement capabilities. Despite Democratic concerns about legal violations, Noem expressed confidence in congressional approval of the budget.
Read More
The Supreme Court temporarily allowed the Trump administration’s ban on transgender military service members, overturning a lower court’s injunction. This ban, framed as a restriction based on gender dysphoria rather than transgender identity, was challenged by current and aspiring transgender service members who argued it violated their constitutional rights. The Supreme Court’s decision, while temporary, suggests a likely future victory for the administration. The ban surpasses previous iterations by discharging active-duty personnel and is considered discriminatory by advocacy groups.
Read More
President Trump’s public statements asserting his authority to unilaterally return wrongfully deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia, yet refusing to do so based on legal counsel, represent a defiance of the Supreme Court’s mandate. This action reveals the administration’s bad faith efforts to expand presidential removal powers unchecked. Trump’s admissions unintentionally undermine his legal position and broader agenda through his own incompetence. The situation highlights a fundamental breakdown of accountability within the administration.
Read More
The Supreme Court heard two cases with significant implications for public education. The first case, *Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond*, concerns whether Oklahoma must fund a religious charter school, potentially overturning the state’s mandate for secular public charter schools. The second case, *Mahmoud v. Taylor*, addresses whether religious parents can exempt their children from lessons conflicting with their beliefs, potentially granting religious parents curriculum veto power. Conservative justices showed a willingness to expand religious influence in public schools, potentially leading to the widespread integration of religious instruction and the restriction of certain topics. This could fundamentally alter the nature of public education in the United States.
Read More
The Supreme Court heard arguments regarding St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, Oklahoma’s first publicly funded religious charter school, after the state supreme court blocked it citing First Amendment concerns. The case hinges on whether taxpayer funding of the school violates the Establishment Clause or is protected under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. A decision allowing public funding could significantly impact charter school regulations nationwide and has sparked debate among Oklahoma’s Republican leadership. Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself.
Read More
The Supreme Court is deciding whether victims of “wrong-house raids” can sue the federal government. This case stems from a 2017 incident where FBI agents mistakenly raided the wrong home, causing significant trauma to the occupants. The question hinges on the interpretation of the Federal Tort Claims Act, specifically whether it allows lawsuits for such errors regardless of whether officers followed orders. The government argues that holding them liable for every mistake would hinder law enforcement, while the plaintiffs contend Congress intended to provide recourse in precisely these circumstances. A ruling is expected this summer.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker