Tag Archives: Justice Amy Coney Barrett

Esquire: Trump Has a New Scapegoat for His Inability to Enact Tariffs: Conservative Legal Puppeteer Leonard Leo

Posted on by
Reply

President mad again. President big mad again. President big mad on social media platform. President big mad at judges and at guy who recommended them. Very big mad, indeed.

“Where do these initial three Judges come from? How is it possible for them to have potentially done such damage to the United States of America? Is it purely a hatred of ‘TRUMP?’”’ What other reason could it be? I was new to Washington, and it was suggested that I use The Federalist Society as a recommending source on Judges. I did so, openly and freely, but then realized that they were under the thumb of a real ‘sleazebag’ named Leonard Leo, a bad person who, in his own way, probably hates America, and obviously has his own separate ambitions. He openly brags how he controls Judges, and even Justices of the United States Supreme Court—I hope that is not so, and don’t believe it is! In any event, Leo left The Federalist Society to do his own ‘thing.’ I am so disappointed in The Federalist Society because of the bad advice they gave me on numerous Judicial Nominations. This is something that cannot be forgotten!”

Trump Has a New Scapegoat for His Inability to Enact Tariffs: Conservative Legal Puppeteer Leonard Leo
The president is big mad at judges and the guy who recommended them.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/trump-has-a-new-scapegoat-for-his-inability-to-enact-tariffs-conservative-legal-puppeteer-leonard-leo/ar-AA1FNnl3

Another article:

Donald Trump calls Leonard Leo “sleazebag,” regrets judge picks
President Donald Trump blamed the Federalist Society for advising him to pick judges who have ruled against his agenda.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-calls-leonard-leo-sleazebag-judge-picks-tariff-ruling-2078800

Alternet: Split Supreme Court deals a massive blow to right-wing movement — but ‘the fight isn’t over’

Posted on by
Reply

Public education and First Amendment advocates on Thursday celebrated the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to allow the nation’s first religious public charter school in Oklahoma—even though the outcome of this case doesn’t rule out the possibility of another attempt to establish such an institution.

“Requiring states to allow religious public schools would dismantle religious freedom and public education as we know it,” Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the ACLU, said in a statement about the 4-4 decison. “Today, a core American constitutional value remains in place: Public schools must remain secular and welcome all students, regardless of faith.”

Unfortunately a 4-4 decision doesn’t mean that it’s over, only that the lower court decision under appeal will be allowed to stand, for now at least.

https://www.alternet.org/supreme-court-charter-2672189203

MSNBC: The biggest takeaway from SCOTUS’ birthright citizenship hearing is not an obvious one

Posted on by
Reply

The administration’s top lawyer is telling the court it doesn’t believe it has to comply with lower court orders in all circumstances.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments over Donald Trump’s efforts to end birthright citizenship, but the biggest takeaway from those arguments has nothing to do with birthright citizenship at all. Instead, perhaps the most important moment of Thursday’s hearing came when the Trump administration’s top appellate lawyer (who was previously Trump’s personal Supreme Court advocate), Solicitor General D. John Sauer, revealed a troubling sign of creeping authoritarianism.

…

Here’s what that means in plain English: The Trump administration, through its top lawyer, is telling the Supreme Court that it doesn’t believe it has to comply with lower court orders in all circumstances. And contrary to Sauer’s assertion, that finds no support in long-standing DOJ policy, much less department norms.

It’s one thing to hear political actors — whether that’s the White House press secretary or even Vice President JD Vance — assert that the administration should not be bound by federal court orders it considers lawless. But it’s another thing entirely to hear the administration’s top appeals lawyer say as much in front of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Lisa Rubin: The biggest takeaway from SCOTUS’ birthright citizenship hearing is not an obvious one
The administration’s top lawyer is telling the court it doesn’t believe it has to comply with lower court orders in all circumstances.

https://www.msnbc.com/top-stories/latest/trump-supreme-court-birthright-citizenship-authoritarianism-rcna207270

Raw Story: ‘Oof’: Legal experts shocked by Trump DOJ proposal revealed in big Supreme Court hearing

Posted on by
Reply

University of Michigan law professor Leah Litman wrote her own comical paraphrasing of U.S. Supreme Court justices’ comments. In one case, she pointed out Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s “partial list of the SCOTUS precedents (4) this order violates.”

Litman then paraphrased Chief Justice John Roberts in her own words.

“Chief: let’s stop this murder, please,” she quipped.

In one exchange, Justice Elena Kagan asked, if they assume this is a completely illegal executive order, how do the courts actually stop it?

Sauer said it would file a class action.

Kagan said that he would then argue that there isn’t a class to certify under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Sauer agreed, so Kagan asked what other options there were.

Sauer suggested every affected individual would sue.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned if Sauer was seriously proposing such an idea.

Litman wrote her own paraphrasing: “Oh dang Elena Kagan ‘assume you’re really f—— wrong and this order is wildly illegal. Are you saying every individual child has to sue to establish their citizenship?'”

Lawyer and journalist at Rewire, Imani Gandy commented, “Every child of undocumented immigrants has to file their own lawsuit. Millions of lawsuits. Makes perfect sense.”

Civil litigator Owen Barcala posted on Bluesky, “This is such a good point, I’m frustrated I didn’t see it. If the gov issues a clearly illegal order that applies to millions and it is losing in every individual case, why would it ever appeal the losses? So what if they can’t enforce it as to a dozen people if they can still do it for millions?”

MSNBC and Just Security legal analyst Adam Klasfeld cited a debate between Sotomayor and Solicitor General John Sauer.

“Sotomayor notes that barring nationwide injunctions, as the Trump admin asks, would mean that courts would be powerless to stop a ‘clearly, indisputably unconstitutional’ act, taking every gun from every citizen. We couldn’t stop that?” Klasfeld posted on Bluesky, quoting the justice.

&c.

https://www.rawstory.com/birthright-citizenship-2672024689

Reason: Supreme Court Rejects Trump’s Claim That He Can Summarily Deport Anyone He Describes As an ‘Alien Enemy’

Posted on by
Reply

!!!!!!!!!!

The Supreme Court on Monday unanimously agreed that alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua have a due process right to challenge President Donald Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to summarily deport them.

…

As the Court’s unsigned order in Trump v. J.G.G. notes, “‘it is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law’ in the context of removal proceedings,” meaning “the detainees are entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard ‘appropriate to the nature of the case.'” Specifically, the majority says, “AEA detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.”

That order decisively rejects the Trump administration’s attempt to deport suspected gang members without judicial review.

Supreme Court Rejects Trump’s Claim That He Can Summarily Deport Anyone He Describes As an ‘Alien Enemy’
The Supreme Court on Monday unanimously agreed that alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua have a due process right to challenge President Donald Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to summarily deport them. At the same time, the majority lifted a temporary restraining order (TRO) that blocked those deportations, saying Venezu…

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-rejects-trump-s-claim-that-he-can-summarily-deport-anyone-he-describes-as-an-alien-enemy/ar-AA1CxXGN