Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito Quotes Himself in New Opinion
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito quoted himself from nearly 20 years earlier in a dissent on Tuesday after his colleagues on the bench decided against hearing a case about a junior high student who wore a shirt stipulating that there are only two genders.
Why It Matters
Free speech and First Amendment cases are routine, sometimes reaching the High Court. That was the hope for Liam Morrison, formerly an eighth grader at Middleborough Public Schools in Massachusetts, who in 2023 sued the district after being forced to remove and no longer wear a T-shirt reading, "There are only two genders."
He was also barred from wearing an alternate version of the shirt with the words "two genders" covered up by tape, accompanied by the word "censored" written on it.
What To Know
The Supreme Court rejected taking the case, instead leaving the initial federal appeals court ruling in place—choosing not to challenge educators' decision on the basis of the district being an inclusive environment for transgender and gender-nonconforming students.
"The court erred, and badly so: the rule that viewpoint-based restrictions on speech are almost never allowed is not a new principle proclaimed only in 'recent decisions' like Matal or Iancu," Alito wrote in his dissent. "To the contrary, viewpoint neutrality has long been seen as going to 'the very heart of the First Amendment.' The First Circuit was wrong to expel this bedrock constitutional safeguard from our schools."
U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito testifies about the court's budget during a hearing of the House Appropriations Committee's Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee March 07, 2019, in Washington, D.C.
U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito testifies about the court's budget during a hearing of the House Appropriations Committee's Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee March 07, 2019, in Washington, D.C.Alito's mention of "the very heart of the First Amendment" is a line he wrote verbatim in 2007 as part of his concurring opinion in the case Morse v. Frederick, also about a student who was suspended from his school for what he argued was a violation of his free speech.
In that case, argued and decided between March and June 2007, a student, among others, at a school-sanctioned and school-supervised event, unfurled a banner stating "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS." School officials directed students to take down the banner due to the promotion of illegal drug use and a violation of school policy.
But one student—Frederick, the petitioner—did not comply and was suspended for 10 days. A lower court found a First Amendment violation, though the Supreme Court felt otherwise.
"During the Tinker era, a public school could have defined its educational mission to include solidarity with our soldiers and their families and thus could have attempted to outlaw the wearing of black armbands on the ground that they undermined this mission," Alito wrote in his concurring opinion in 2007. "Alternatively, a school could have defined its educational mission to include the promotion of world peace and could have sought to ban the wearing of buttons expressing support for the troops on the ground that the buttons signified approval of war.
"The 'educational mission' argument would give public school authorities a license to suppress speech on political and social issues based on disagreement with the viewpoint expressed. The argument, therefore, strikes at the very heart of the First Amendment."
Tinker references the 1969 Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which upheld the right of public school students to wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam War if education was not interrupted.
The longtime justice also agreed "that a public school may restrict speech that a reasonable observer would interpret as advocating illegal drug use," adding that the Court provides no support "for any restriction of speech that can plausibly be interpreted as commenting on any political or social issue, including speech on issues such as 'the wisdom of the war on drugs or of legalizing marijuana for medicinal use.'"
Alito said this newly rejected case involves a school that "permitted and indeed encouraged student expression endorsing the view that there are many genders," whereas opposing viewpoints, such as Morrison's, were not allowed.
"This case presents an issue of great importance for our Nation's youth: whether public schools may suppress student speech either because it expresses a viewpoint that the school disfavors or because of vague concerns about the likely effect of the speech on the school atmosphere or on students who find the speech offensive," he wrote.
What People Are Saying
Attorney David Seltzer, managing partner at Seltzer Mayberg, to Newsweek: "Gender is a cultural focus in today's world, both politically and in our legal system. There are so many ways to address this topic, but our constitution dictates that free speech control, and nothing more. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented in that this should have been heard, and that the schools actions are akin to suppression of free speech. The Supreme Court should have addressed this matter, but they chose to punt it, and that sets a different kind of precedent on what we as a society now need to interpret under free speech."
Liam Morrison in February 2024: "This isn't just about the shirt. It's about free speech. All students have a constitutional right to express their free speech without fear of being punished by school officials."
Attorney Dave Courtman of Alliance Defending Freedom, and Morrison's counsel, in February 2024: "The problem is the school district itself waded into a controversial cultural issue, which it certainly is welcome to do. But then it took sides in the debate, and that's certainly way across the constitutional line."
What Happens Next
The rejected case will remain so due to the Supreme Court's rejection.
Other similar cases the Court has heard in recent years have included those regarding transgender medical care, Title VII cases, and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
27 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Full List of Countries Affected by Trump's New Travel Ban
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump issued a new proclamation on Wednesday restricting travel by foreigners from 12 countries and partially restricting entry for travelers from an additional seven countries. Why It Matters Since his January 20 inauguration, Trump has cracked down on foreign nationals in the U.S., mainly through executive orders, and has prioritized immigration enforcement as a key pillar of his agenda. He has repeatedly invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a wartime law that grants the commander in chief authority to detain or deport non-citizens, to remove migrants from the U.S. The president's authority to invoke the statute has been challenged in multiple court cases related to the Trump administration's deportations. What To Know "During my first Administration, I restricted the entry of foreign nationals into the United States, which successfully prevented national security threats from reaching our borders and which the Supreme Court upheld," Trump said in his proclamation. The president added that foreign nationals with admitted entry into the United States must not "bear hostile attitudes toward its citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles, and do not advocate for, aid, or support designated foreign terrorists or other threats to our national security." Trump said he directed some of his Cabinet to identify countries with insufficient vetting and screening as to warrant a partial or full suspension of admission into the United States. The ban goes into effect 12:01 a.m. on June 9, 2025. CNN reports that it includes exceptions for permanent residents, visa holders and those whose entry would serve US interests. The following countries have been fully restricted, with limited entry: Afghanistan Burma Chad Republic of the Congo Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Haiti Iran Libya Somalia Sudan Yemen The following countries have been partially restricted, with limited entry: Burundi Cuba Laos Sierra Leone Togo Turkmenistan Venezuela This story is developing and will be updated with additional information.
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judge orders Trump administration to bring Venezuelans back from El Salvador prison
Backed by a Supreme Court order, a federal judge ruled on Wednesday that the Trump administration must bring back to the United States hundreds of suspected Venezuelan gang members who were sent to a mega prison in El Salvador without any court review of the criminal allegations against them. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg of Washington, D.C., said the alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang who were deported in mid-March under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act are entitled to filing habeas petitions to challenge the legal basis for their deportation and imprisonment in the notorious facility in El Salvador known as CECOT, the Spanish initials for the Terrorism Confinement Center. Describing the Venezuelans' ordeal as 'Kafkaesque,' the judge noted that while the U.S. Supreme Court in April overturned his injunction stopping the removals of the suspected Venezuelan gang members, the justices ruled that the migrants have a due-process right to contest their detention on an individual basis in the United States. 'Perhaps the President lawfully invoked the Alien Enemies Act. Perhaps, moreover, [the Trump administration is] are correct that Plaintiffs [Venezuelan immigrants] are gang members,' Boasberg wrote in his 69-page order. 'But — and this is the critical point — there is simply no way to know for sure, as the CECOT Plaintiffs never had any opportunity to challenge the Government's say-so. 'Defendants instead spirited away planeloads of people before any such challenge could be made,' Boasberg added. 'And now, significant evidence has come to light indicating that many of those currently entombed in CECOT have no connection to the gang and thus languish in a foreign prison on flimsy, even frivolous, accusations.' Boasberg's rebuke of the Department of Homeland Security's decision to invoke the the archaic war powers law as grounds for summarily deporting the suspected Venezuelan gang members followed a major ruling by the Supreme Court in April. The court vacated the judge's temporary restraining order that had blocked the removal of alleged Venezuelan gang members, giving the Trump administration the green light to use the wartime law to carry out the deportations of certain migrants. The majority ruled that challenges to the detention and removal of migrants using the Alien Enemies Act must be brought as legal petitions in the area where the plaintiffs were held in the United States, not in Washington, D.C., where the American Civil Liberties Union filed its petition. But the majority also found that such migrants are entitled to due process of the law as part of their removal proceedings. The plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit in question said they had been wrongly accused of being members of the violent Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. Alien Enemies Act detainees 'must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the act,' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. '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.' The high court opinion came just as the judge who issued the temporary restraining order was mulling whether to hold Trump administration officials in contempt for violating his order to pause the flights of Venezuelan migrants to the mega prison in El Salvador that began in March. Boasberg originally imposed a 14-day temporary restraining order halting the deportations of alleged members of Tren de Aragua. In a concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that all nine members of the Supreme Court agree that judicial review is available to migrants. 'The only question is where that judicial review should occur,' Kavanaugh wrote. Among the immigrants sent to the prison in El Salvador was a Maryland man. In a related legal dispute, the Trump administration admitted that Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran native, was deported there due to an 'administrative error' — despite an immigration court order that he not be removed from the United States. Another federal judge ordered the Trump administration to bring him back to the U.S. The Supreme Court affirmed the judge's order directing the Trump administration to 'facilitate' Garcia's release, but he's still imprisoned in El Salvador.
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What can we expect from Trump's judicial nominees?
On Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee held its first judicial nominations hearing of President Donald Trump's second term. They heard from Trump's first batch of potential federal judges since he returned to the White House: four nominees to Missouri federal district courts and a nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, the federal appeals court for Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. The 6th Circuit nominee, Whitney Hermandorfer, is impressively credentialed. Both the valedictorian of her law school class at George Washington University and the editor-in-chief of the law review, she worked at litigation powerhouse Williams & Connolly in Washington, D.C., where current partners sing her praises. Hermandorfer clerked for four federal judges, including three sitting Supreme Court justices. And after returning to her home state of Tennessee, she has served as the director of strategic litigation at the state attorney general's office. If I were invited to lunch with Hermandorfer, I expect she would be — as she was during Wednesday's hearing — modest, poised, interesting and likable. But her paper trail and some of her exchanges with senators could be ominous signs of the Trump judicial nominees to come. Put aside that Hermandorfer graduated from law school just 10 years ago and served as a law clerk for four of them. Her six years of actual legal practice is roughly half of what the American Bar Association considers necessary to be qualified for a federal judgeship. What's far more troubling is how she has spent that time and what she won't discuss. For example, Hermandorfer signed Tennessee's amicus brief in one of the birthright citizenship cases now before the Supreme Court. Tennessee's brief echoes the Trump administration's primary arguments: First, the citizenship clause does not confer citizenship simply because of a child's 'presence' in the U.S. And second, in any event, an injunction that extends beyond the plaintiffs in a given case and applies nationally is an unlawful exercise of judicial power. When Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., asked Hermandorfer why Tennessee submitted that brief, she said: 'We were not satisfied that all of the information regarding the contemporaneous meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment was being presented to the various courts, given that the litigation was proceeding so quickly.' She elaborated that Tennessee's brief highlighted '1800s-era sources regarding the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment' and maintained that the state 'did not take an ultimate position with regard to the merits of the executive order,' but instead intended to underscore that it isn't an 'open-and-shut case.' That all sounds fair, right? Yet the brief's first page argues plainly that if the Constitution's citizenship clause is interpreted to focus on 'parental domicile,' or where someone's parents reside, rather than mere presence, Trump's executive order banning birthright citizenship is constitutional. That position is not only antithetical to more than 125 years of American jurisprudence and lived experience, but her response to Durbin also raises questions about her veracity. Hermandorfer's exchange with Sen. Amy Klobuchar about habeas corpus, the legal means by which a prisoner or detainee can seek release, was similarly revealing. The Minnesota Democrat noted White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller's recent statement that the Trump administration was 'actively looking at' suspending the writ of habeas corpus, which, according to the Constitution, can be suspended only 'when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.' Such suspensions are widely understood to require congressional action. As Hermandorfer's ex-boss Justice Barrett and appellate superstar Neal Katyal have jointly written, the relevant constitutional text 'does not specify which branch of government has the authority to suspend the privilege of the writ, but most agree that only Congress can do it.' Klobuchar therefore asked: 'Do you agree that only Congress can suspend the right to habeas corpus?' Hermandorfer wouldn't engage, however, much less acknowledge, that every time the writ has been suspended — even when the suspension ultimately was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court — Congress was either involved in the decision or ratified it thereafter, as as in Abraham Lincoln's case. Instead, she replied: That is a issue that is under active consideration by the political branches, and could very well come before me if I were confirmed as a judge. So I think, in prudence, as a judicial nominee, it would not be appropriate for me to pass on the validity of any such arguments. Hermandorfer isn't the first judicial nominee to somewhat mischaracterize her prior legal advocacy. Nor is she the first to avoid inconvenient questions. But until this administration, both birthright citizenship and the need for Congress to approve any suspension of habeas were taken as givens across the ideological spectrum. That Whitney Hermandorfer, like Trump himself, considers them viable legal disputes should concern us all. This article was originally published on
