Fox News anchor John Roberts is currently hospitalized with a severe case of malaria, diagnosed on August 25th. Roberts reported experiencing intense body aches and uncontrolled shivering before seeking medical attention. He believes he contracted the mosquito-borne illness during a recent vacation in Indonesia. While undergoing treatment with IV artesunate, he described his condition as “up and down” with hopes to return to work by next week.
Read More
In the past few months, the Supreme Court, heavily influenced by Trump’s appointments, has issued a series of rulings, largely through the “shadow docket,” that have greatly benefited the former president, including granting him 18 straight victories. These decisions have allowed Trump to pursue his agenda and potentially causing immense suffering to millions. Critics, including prominent legal scholars, argue that Chief Justice John Roberts is overseeing the undermining of the rule of law. The current actions have led many, including legal scholars, to fear for the future of the court.
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
The Supreme Court ordered the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran migrant illegally deported despite a withholding order, but the Trump administration refused, citing El Salvador’s jurisdiction. This defiance followed a lower court order and constitutes a blatant disregard for judicial authority. The administration’s actions, including barring AP reporters from the Oval Office, demonstrate a pattern of ignoring court orders. This situation highlights the president’s disregard for the law and raises serious concerns about the rule of law within the United States.
Read More
Following a meeting between Donald Trump and Nayib Bukele, Trump falsely claimed a 9-0 Supreme Court ruling in his favor regarding the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, misrepresenting the court’s decision and refusing compliance. This action raises serious questions about the Supreme Court’s potential response and the integrity of the Department of Justice, which has shown a pattern of prioritizing loyalty to Trump over adherence to the law. The article highlights concerns regarding the Chief Justice’s awareness of this situation and the potential implications for the nation’s future. Ultimately, the Chief Justice’s understanding of the DOJ’s actions is crucial to determining the next steps.
Read More
Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily stayed a midnight deadline for the Trump administration to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man mistakenly deported to a dangerous El Salvadoran prison. The Justice Department argued that Judge Paula Xinis’ order overstepped her authority, claiming the administration lacked the means to retrieve Abrego Garcia from a foreign sovereign’s custody. While the administration admitted the deportation was an error, they contested the court’s injunction, framing it as part of a broader effort to impede the President’s agenda. The case is further complicated by a separate Supreme Court appeal concerning the deportation of Venezuelan migrants to the same prison.
Read More
Chief Justice Roberts issued a statement rebuking President Trump’s call for the impeachment of a federal judge who ruled against him, emphasizing that the appellate process, not impeachment, is the appropriate response to judicial decisions. This statement drew immediate criticism from some conservatives, who argued that Congress retains the constitutional power of impeachment and that judicial overreach warrants such action. Conversely, others lauded Roberts’ defense of judicial independence. The controversy follows Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act and subsequent calls for the judge’s removal.
Read More
Chief Justice Roberts’ recent comments, seemingly directed at figures like Trump and Musk, represent a shift from his previous support of rulings expanding presidential power. This change follows Trump’s attack on Judge Boasberg, who blocked Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, an attack that included calls for the judge’s impeachment. The Chief Justice’s implicit criticism highlights the growing tension between right-wing attacks on the judiciary and the Court’s role in upholding the rule of law. Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric underscores the increasingly fraught relationship between the executive branch and the federal courts.
Read More
Chief Justice John Roberts’ carefully constructed image of judicial impartiality was shattered during a post-State of the Union exchange with President Trump. Trump’s effusive thanks, implying prior favors, exposed the perceived non-partisanship as a façade, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s controversial ruling in *Trump v. United States*. This decision, widely criticized for its weak legal reasoning, shielded Trump from federal and state criminal cases, suggesting a partisan motivation. The incident highlights the tension between the Court’s claims of objectivity and its actions, which appear to favor specific political outcomes.
Read More
Chief Justice Roberts’ year-end report uses images of civil rights-era judges, like J. Waties Waring, to deflect criticism of contemporary judicial decisions. This tactic, also employed by Judge Edith Jones, falsely equates modern judicial opponents to those who faced violent backlash for upholding civil rights. Sherrilyn Ifill argues this comparison is ahistorical and inaccurate, highlighting the stark difference between judges who risked their safety and standing to advance justice and those facing criticism today. This appropriation of civil rights history ignores the systemic racism faced by civil rights advocates and minimizes the severity of the modern critiques. The comparison is ultimately a misguided attempt to shield controversial rulings from legitimate scrutiny.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker