Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) claimed that Supreme Court Justice Chief John Roberts will join the ranks of “infamous” high court justices over a recent decision that weakened the Voting Rights Act. “I never thought I would see the day that the United States Supreme Court would be so openly partisan with what it’s been doing,”… Source link
President Trump said Wednesday that “certain” conservative justices on the Supreme Court have “gone weak, stupid, and bad,” tearing into them for a recent decision on tariffs and skepticism over his effort to limit birthright citizenship. Trump slammed “Republican” justices in a lengthy Truth Social post, arguing that they “don’t stick together” like their liberal… Source link
With President Donald Trump present, US Supreme Court justices signaled skepticism on Wednesday toward the legality of his directive to restrict birthright citizenship in the US, part of his hardline immigration approach that would upend the long-held understanding of a key constitutional provision. Source link
As the Supreme Court heard oral arguments today about birthright citizenship, Donald Trump was watching from the courtroom—an apparent first for a sitting president. He listened silently as the justices pelted skeptical questions at Solicitor General John Sauer, who tried to defend a Trump executive order purporting to deny citizenship to the U.S.-born children of certain immigrants. Not long into arguments by Cecillia Wang, the ACLU lawyer representing Trump’s challengers, the president got up and left. The odd scene reflected the administration’s approach to the matter of birthright citizenship: Simply declare you are right, and then ignore arguments to the contrary. Yet if Trump intended his presence to pressure the justices into siding with him, he failed. Most of the justices, even among the conservative supermajority, seemed inclined to strike down his policy. Still, the fact that this case got as far as it did—and that the justices had to consider it seriously enough to spend their time rebuking it—is itself a scandal. The case, Trump v. Barbara, turns on the Trump administration’s argument that …
The Supreme Court weighed a policy that would allow agents at U.S. borders to block migrants from entering the country to seek asylum. Source link
WASHINGTON — Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch pulled no punches in taking aim at his colleagues on the Supreme Court for a lack of consistency in approaching broad assertions of presidential power made by Joe Biden and Donald Trump. Gorsuch was part of the 6-3 majority that struck down most of Trump’s tariffs on Friday, but he wrote a separate 46-page opinion that chided several of his fellow justices over how they approached the case. His colleagues were effectively applying the same Supreme Court precedent differently under Trump than they did under Biden, he argued, writing: “It is an interesting turn of events.” His invective focused on a theory known as the “major questions doctrine,” which adherents say bars sweeping presidential action not specifically authorized by Congress. The conservative-majority court embraced the doctrine while Biden was in office to strike down broad plans, such as his effort to forgive student loan debt. But in ruling against Trump on tariffs Friday, the conservative majority splintered. Gorsuch, Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts were in …
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Friday launched an extraordinary attack on the Supreme Court after it ruled against him on tariffs, describing justices in the majority as a “disgrace to our nation” and “very unpatriotic and disloyal to the Constitution.” While praising the three dissenting justices in the 6-3 ruling that invalidated most of his tariffs, Trump suggested the majority was “swayed by foreign interests” and said the three Democratic appointees in the majority are “fools and lapdogs” to moderate Republicans and Democrats. “The Supreme Court’s ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing, and I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country,” Trump said in remarks at the White House. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority that frequently rules in his favor. While presidents often criticize Supreme Court rulings that upend major policies, it is highly unusual for them to use such harsh and personal language. Two justices in the majority — Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett — …
President Trump slammed the Supreme Court justices who struck down his tariffs on Friday, which included two justices he nominated, saying he was “ashamed of certain members of the court.” “They’re very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution. It’s my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that… Source link
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Utah Gov. Spencer Cox signed a bill Saturday that expands the state Supreme Court from five justices to seven as frustration has mounted among Republican lawmakers over a string of defeats before the tribunal. Republican advocates for the change argued that it would help improve the court’s efficiency. But legal experts said it could have the opposite effect and set a dangerous precedent at a time of tension between the branches of government. The state’s judiciary did not ask for more justices on the high court. Democrats, who were united in opposition to the bill, called the timing suspicious. Last week the Legislature asked the court to overturn a redistricting ruling that gave Democrats a strong shot at picking up one of Utah’s four Republican-held congressional seats in the fall. New justices could be in place when the court decides the fate of the congressional map. Because the bill received approval from more than two-thirds of legislators, it took effect immediately after the governor signed it, allowing him to bypass …
Authored by Arjun Singh via The Epoch Times, Three justices of the Supreme Court of the United States on Jan. 13 pressed advocates in two cases regarding transgender student participation in sports to define “sex” for the purposes of constitutional law. “What is that definition, for equal protection purposes? What does it mean to be a boy or a girl, or a man or a woman?” asked Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. during the first round of oral arguments in the case of Little v. Hecox. In that case, Idaho’s law H.B. 500—which bans transgender individuals from participating in women’s sporting events—is being challenged by Lindsay Hecox, a transgender student at Boise State University who attempted to join the women’s track and cross-country teams. “We do not have a definition for the court,” replied Hecox’s advocate, Kathleen R. Hartnett of Cooley LLP. Hartnett, however, argued that her side was not challenging the definition of “woman” in H.B. 500, but merely the way Idaho has applied it to his case. “The way it applies, in …
