The Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling, partially blocking nationwide injunctions against Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett writing the majority opinion. The court’s decision limits the ability of lower courts to issue broad injunctions, aligning with arguments that such measures overreach the executive branch’s policy-making authority. Justice Sotomayor, in her dissent, argued the ruling would disproportionately impact the vulnerable. The court did not address the merits of the birthright citizenship order itself, maintaining the status quo while returning the case to lower courts to reconsider the scope of their orders.
Read More
The Supreme Court issued a ruling on Friday restricting the ability of lower courts to issue “nationwide injunctions,” specifically impacting the enforcement of potential orders, such as those from the Trump administration, that target civil liberties. The majority opinion, while not addressing the constitutionality of the executive order, stated that such injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority granted to federal courts. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented, with the former strongly criticizing the decision and the latter authoring a separate dissenting opinion. The dissenters felt this ruling provides fuel for attacks on civil liberties.
Read More
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Trump administration, allowing them to take steps to implement the proposal to end automatic birthright citizenship by limiting the scope of nationwide injunctions. In a 6-3 decision, the court determined that injunctions should apply only to the specific states, groups, and individuals that sued, enabling the policy to potentially proceed in states that did not challenge it. The ruling, which did not address the plan’s legal merits, sparked responses from plaintiffs who vowed to continue legal challenges, while the administration can now continue with its administrative work on implementation. The court also noted that the executive order would technically go into effect in 30 days.
Read More
Former Supreme Court Justice Kennedy says “democracy is at risk,” and the immediate reaction is, well, a mix of incredulity and anger. It’s hard to ignore the fact that this declaration comes from a man whose decisions and timing arguably played a significant role in the current state of affairs. The sentiment, echoed repeatedly, is one of “you built this,” followed by a demand for accountability. It’s like someone who lit a fire then warns you about the smoke.
The core of the discontent seems to revolve around a few key actions, most prominently, the Citizens United decision. This ruling, allowing unlimited corporate spending in political campaigns, is seen by many as a direct blow to the integrity of elections and the influence of ordinary citizens.… Continue reading
The Supreme Court has blocked Planned Parenthood from suing South Carolina over the state’s decision to defund the organization’s Medicaid funding due to abortion services provided. The 6-3 ruling, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, focused on whether a specific law allowed for private lawsuits, ultimately finding that it did not. The decision, which split along conservative and liberal lines, sparked debate regarding the implications for Medicaid recipients’ access to care and the ability to enforce their rights. This ruling potentially opens the door for other states to defund Planned Parenthood and restricts Medicaid beneficiaries’ ability to choose their healthcare providers.
Read More
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority has allowed the Trump administration to resume expedited deportations of immigrants to countries other than their homeland, a move that the three dissenting liberal justices labeled a “gross abuse” of power. The ruling, which lacks any stated rationale from the majority, means immigrants can be deported without prior notice or the opportunity to challenge their removal, potentially exposing them to harm. This decision overturns a lower court’s order that had required migrants to be able to challenge deportations if they felt they may face torture or death. The dissent, penned by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, decried the ruling as “incomprehensible” and “inexcusable,” arguing it rewards lawlessness.
Read More
In a recent dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the Trump administration’s handling of immigration matters, accusing the court of “rewarding lawlessness” by supporting the administration’s emergency appeal to deport migrants. The dissent, joined by the court’s other liberals, specifically addressed the administration’s attempts to deport migrants to countries like South Sudan with minimal notice, despite lower court injunctions. Sotomayor argued that the government’s behavior threatened the rule of law by openly flouting court orders and repeatedly seeking relief from the Supreme Court on the emergency docket. This is the tenth time the court has granted a request from Trump on the emergency docket.
Read More
In a recent order, Republican justices on the Supreme Court ruled that President Trump may effectively bypass laws and treaties protecting immigrants from torture. This temporary order allows the administration to send immigrants to potentially dangerous countries while the *D.V.D.* case is litigated. The administration appears to have exploited a loophole, attempting to deport individuals to countries, such as South Sudan and Libya, where they face a high risk of torture without providing new hearings. Justice Sotomayor dissented, highlighting the potential for a deadly trap, as the administration seems to be intentionally selecting unsafe destinations after immigration hearings have already been completed.
Read More
US Supreme Court lifts limits on deporting migrants to countries not their own, and it’s hard not to feel like things have taken a very dark turn. It’s difficult to process this decision, and the implications it carries are chilling. To put it plainly, this ruling essentially allows the deportation of migrants to countries that aren’t their own, bypassing the established rules of what “deportation” has traditionally meant. It’s no longer just a matter of sending someone back to their country of origin; it now encompasses the ability to relocate them to entirely different nations.
The immediate concern that springs to mind is the potential for gross abuses of power.… Continue reading
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal of Damon Landor, a former Louisiana inmate whose dreadlocks were forcibly shaved by prison guards, allegedly violating his religious beliefs as a Rastafarian. Landor sought damages under a federal law protecting prisoners’ religious rights, but lower courts dismissed the case, citing the law’s limitations on monetary claims. The Supreme Court will now review the appellate ruling, considering arguments that align with a previous decision concerning religious freedom under a similar statute. The case, *Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections*, will be argued in the fall.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood