Tag Archives: Ketanji Brown Jackson

Charlotte Observer: ‘Victory’: DHS Praises SCOTUS Ruling on Deportations

Posted on by
Reply

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled to allow the Trump administration to fast-track deportations to third countries like Sudan without notice or a chance to contest. The 6-3 ruling drew dissent from Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who warned it risks torture or death for deportees.

This is simply inhumane. And it will come back to haunt us big time.

…

Sotomayor wrote, “The government has made clear in word and deed that it feels itself unconstrained by law, free to deport anyone anywhere without notice or an opportunity to be heard.”

As some countries have refused deportees, the administration has utilized third-country agreements. Immigrant advocates warned the Supreme Court ruling weakens due process and risks deportees’ safety.

 Sotomayor wrote, “Apparently, the court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in far-flung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a district court exceeded its remedial powers when it ordered the government to provide notice and process to which the plaintiffs are constitutionally and statutorily entitled.”

‘Victory’: DHS Praises SCOTUS Ruling on Deportations
More for You

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/victory-dhs-praises-scotus-ruling-on-deportations/ss-AA1HMtgW

The Hill: Opinion: The Supreme Court’s injunctions decision returns America to the constitutional horrors of Dred Scott

Posted on by
Reply

In ordinary times, someone could read the Supreme Court’s decision on the legality of so-called “universal injunctions” as just the latest example of an old dispute: the proper way to interpret the Constitution and the jurisdiction of federal courts. Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s majority opinion saying the federal district courts do not have the authority to issue such injunctions is a classic in the genre of “originalism.” 

In contrast, the dissenting opinions by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson read the law through the lens not just of its origins but with an eye to how an interpretation would affect the world beyond the courtroom. They understand that these are not ordinary times and do not want to disable the judiciary from responding when fundamental rights are at stake, in the face of an ongoing assault on the rule of law itself. 

To put it simply, with its decision in Trump v. Casa, the court has become an accomplice in President Trump’s ongoing assault on our constitutional republic. The decision has effectively removed the federal courts as a check on the Trump administration.  

But it also does grave damage to the court itself — Trump v. Casa now takes its place among the high court’s most infamous rulings. As Stephen Lubet says, it returns us to the world of its discredited Dred Scott decision, which found that the rights of Black people depended on where they lived. Just like Blacks in the antebellum world who had one status in free states and another in slave states, immigrants and others may now find themselves in a legal nether land. 

The Supreme Court’s injunctions decision returns America to the constitutional horrors of Dred Scott
With its decision in Trump v. Casa, the court has become an accomplice in President Trump’s ongoing assault on our constitutional republic.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/5376627-supreme-court-universal-injunctions-ruling

The Nation: The Supreme Court Gifts Trump Even More Power

Posted on by
Reply

The court seems ready to give the president extraordinary power over what had been independent worker- and consumer-protection agencies.

The court seems ready to give the president extraordinary power over what had been independent worker- and consumer-protection agencies.

Here’s a troubling news alert for everyone who cares about workers and consumers being protected from illegal, exploitative, and dangerous business practices: The Supreme Court appears ready to give President Donald Trump extraordinary power over what for nearly a century have been independent expert federal worker and consumer protection agencies insulated from White House interference.

The court showed its hand in Wilcox v. Trump—the case involving Trump’s unprecedented effort to fire Gwynne Wilcox—a Senate-confirmed member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the first Black woman to ever serve as a member of the NLRB.

Members of independent agencies like the NLRB, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), are nominated by the president and confirmed by the US Senate for defined terms. They are protected by law against being removed from office except where there has been wrongdoing and only after notice and a hearing. The Supreme Court has recognized and respected these “for cause” removal protections for 90 years.

That is, until now. Upon taking office for his second term, Trump decided that he has the power to unilaterally remove members of independent boards and commissions whenever and for whatever reason he wants. The list of casualties is long—in addition to Wilcox, he has fired members of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the FTC, the CPSC, the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Federal Labor Relations Authority, and more. And by firing these officials, Trump has left these consumer- and worker-protection agencies without a quorum to act and hold corporations accountable.

…

The court’s order is going to embolden a president who has already shown himself willing to push or violate the boundaries of his power. Now that the Supreme Court has nodded at his power to fire members of independent boards and commissions, he will undoubtably continue to do so, even before the Supreme Court definitively rules on the merits of the question in its next term.

The Supreme Court Gifts Trump Even More Power
The court seems ready to give the president extraordinary power over what had been independent worker- and consumer-protection agencies.

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/wilcox-trump-federal-agencies

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