logo
A recent history of Supreme Court ties

A recent history of Supreme Court ties

Yahoo2 days ago

This article was first published in the State of Faith newsletter. Sign up to receive the newsletter in your inbox each Monday night.
The Supreme Court's religious charter school case came in with a bang and ended with a tie.
The justices announced Thursday that they were 'equally divided' in Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, which means the Oklahoma Supreme Court's ruling against the first-of-its-kind school remains in place.
The possibility of a deadlocked court had been floated ever since Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself. Still, Thursday's announcement felt surreal — and anticlimactic.
Well, maybe anticlimactic is the wrong word. I wasn't so much disappointed as I was unsettled by the idea that the country is no closer to a consensus on religious charter schools today than it was before the Oklahoma case was fully briefed and argued.
But admitting that probably makes me sound naive. Multiple closely watched Supreme Court cases have ended in ties over the past decade, or in extremely narrow rulings that said little about underlying constitutional questions.
Ties on the Supreme Court can stem from recusals, as the Drummond ruling did, or from vacancies.
After Justice Antonin Scalia died in February 2016, a few notable cases ended with a 4-4 vote, including United States v. Texas, which was about the Obama administration's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, and Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, which was about public school unions.
Ties stemming from recusals are particularly common after a new justice is appointed to the court, because the justice can't participate in cases they considered or worked on in their previous position.
In the case of a tie at the Supreme Court level, the lower court decision remains in place.
Tie rulings may become more common moving forward as the justices adapt to the court's relatively new ethics code.
The code, which was adopted in 2023, puts more pressure on the justices to track and disclose potential conflicts of interest.
The new ethics rules likely explain why four justices recused themselves this month from considering whether to hear a case that involved a prominent book publisher, according to The Washington Post. Because there weren't six justices left to vote, the lower court ruling will remain in place.
First-of-its-kind religious charter school blocked by deadlocked Supreme Court
Prayer service at Pentagon sparks religious freedom debate
New research on astrology, tarot cards and fortune tellers is full of surprises
Omega Gym in Rome caters to an unusual clientele: priests, nuns and monsignors from the Vatican City.
Pope Leo XIV went there several times a week over the past two years — when he was still known as Robert Prevost — as he tried to improve his 'posture and cardiovascular capacity,' according to The Associated Press.
'When the name of the pope was announced, my phone rings and my son tells me, 'Dad, it's Robert! Robert, our member!'' Francesco Tamburlani, the owner of the gym, told the AP. 'I heard the gym staff behind him cheering. ... This moved us, filled us with joy.'
Tamburlani added that Pope Leo's gym membership is still active, although it's unclear if he'll be able to use it.
'We would organize our gym to guarantee his safety and his privacy. We would just need a sign,' he told the AP.
By now, you're probably sick of hearing about young people drifting away from organized religion. But I'm only bringing that up again now to help explain my fascination with the fact that engagement with religious programming is actually on the rise on college campuses across the country. 'People want to feel loved for who they are and not what they do,' Chaz Lattimore Howard, the university chaplain at the University of Pennsylvania, told The Atlantic. Whether or not they believe in God, they 'want to be reassured that it's going to be okay.'
In his latest article for Religion Unplugged, my friend Bobby Ross Jr. offered an in-depth look at a faith-focused event that set the stage for a Detroit Tigers baseball game.
NPR recently visited a small community south of Tampa, Florida, that's reeling after a beloved local pastor was unexpectedly detained by ICE. The Rev. Maurilio Ambrocio had paperwork allowing him to be in the United States and checked in with immigration agents regularly, but he was still taken into detention in April. 'You're gonna take you know a community leader, a Pastor, a hard working man … What, did you need a number that day?," one of the pastor's neighbors told NPR.
Earlier this month, I wrote about a surprising religious freedom battle in Toms River, New Jersey, involving a proposed homeless shelter, a proposed pickleball court and eminent domain. The New York Times covered the same conflict last week and summarized the latest developments.
Hope you had a great Memorial Day weekend! Now it's time for the most important holiday season of all: my birthday week.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

US stock futures little changed as investors eye fresh inflation data and more trade news
US stock futures little changed as investors eye fresh inflation data and more trade news

USA Today

time18 minutes ago

  • USA Today

US stock futures little changed as investors eye fresh inflation data and more trade news

US stock futures little changed as investors eye fresh inflation data and more trade news Show Caption Hide Caption What is 'TACO trade,' a new phrase angering President Trump? 'TACO trade' is a jab at President Donald Trump's propensity to impose or threaten tariffs and later back off. U.S. stock futures are little changed as investors await fresh inflation data and any new trade news. The Federal Reserve's preferred inflation gauge, the personal consumption expenditures index (PCE), personal income and spending data are due before the bell. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones expect PCE to rise 2.2% year over year. Core PCE, which strips out volatile food and energy prices, is expected to rise 2.6% for the year. At 7:39 a.m. ET, futures linked to the blue-chip Dow fell 0.03%; while the broad S&P 500 lost 0.08% and tech-laden Nasdaq shed 0.06%. After an appeals court let President Donald Trump's tariffs stand while the White House gets through the appeals process, investors are still waiting for the final say. Some say the case could end up decided by the Supreme Court. Additionally, some analysts say the court fight over tariffs may spur Trump to re-escalate tariff talk. "Given Trump's public ire against previous court rulings and the press questions on May 28 around the 'TACO' narrative emerging in the media (Trump Always Chickens Out), we would not be surprised to see a meaningful tariff escalation/response from the White House sooner rather than later," wrote Chris Krueger at TD Cowen in a note. Trump is already looking at ways to implement tariffs while the case makes its way through the appeals process, the Wall Street Journal said. The administration is considering using a provision of the Trade Act of 1974 to implement tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days, it said. Further uncertainty about tariffs came from Treasury Secretary Bessent, who said in a Fox News interview that U.S.-China trade talks 'are a bit stalled." Investors are hoping a real trade deal, not just a pause, would emerge with China after surprisingly productive talks in Switzerland earlier in the month. Still, all three major indexes are on pace for gains for the week and the month. Corporate news Gap sees second-quarter revenues below Street forecasts. Discount bulk retailer Costco's quarterly results topped expetations. Dell's sales in the first three months topped analysts' forecasts and raised its full-year guidance. Marvell Technology swung to a profit, fueled by strong demand for artificial intelligence. American Eagle Outfitters swung to a loss in the first three months. Zscakler reported higher third-quarter revenue and slightly increased its full-year sales guidance. Ulta boosted its full-year outlook and posted higher-than-expected first-quarter sales. Medora Lee is a money, markets, and personal finance reporter at USA TODAY. You can reach her at mjlee@ and subscribe to our free Daily Money newsletter for personal finance tips and business news every Monday through Friday.

In Trump Immigration Cases, It's One Thing in Public, Another in Court
In Trump Immigration Cases, It's One Thing in Public, Another in Court

Yahoo

time33 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

In Trump Immigration Cases, It's One Thing in Public, Another in Court

During his testimony on Capitol Hill earlier this month, Secretary of State Marco Rubio took a swipe at Senator Chris Van Hollen, falsely accusing him of having had 'a margarita' with Kilmar Abrego Garcia—one of the Maryland Democrat's constituents, who was mistakenly sent to an El Salvador megaprison more than two months ago and who remains there despite the Supreme Court ordering the Trump administration to facilitate his release. 'That guy is a human trafficker, and that guy is a gangbanger … and the evidence is going to be clear,' Rubio said of Abrego Garcia, repeating claims that have never been proved in court. 'He can't make unsubstantiated comments like that!' Van Hollen shouted over the pounding gavel of the Republican chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. 'Secretary Rubio should take that testimony to the federal court of the United States, because he hasn't done it under oath.' Van Hollen's frustration centered on the frequent gap between what the Trump administration says about its mass-deportation campaign in court, where it is required to tell the truth, and what officials say in public as they attempt to blunt criticism of their immigration crackdown. By playing up the alleged criminality of deportees at every opportunity, they deflect attention from the more mundane issue of whether the government is following the law. [Read: A loophole that would swallow the Constitution] When the administration's attorneys appear before the court, and top officials are required to provide sworn testimony, the administration is more restrained and tethered to facts. Department of Justice attorneys insist that the administration is following judicial orders in good faith. They recognize errors made by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, even if they attempt to diminish their significance. And they provide data and logistical details about ICE deportations that they do not otherwise release voluntarily. Outside of court, President Donald Trump and his top aides depict deportees as terrorists and gang leaders regardless of whether they've been convicted of a crime. They admit no mistakes. And if judges rule unfavorably, they denounce them as 'communists' and 'lunatics' and suggest that they won't respect their rulings. Trump and his top officials have dispensed with the usual conventions regarding public comment on pending cases. This has been a theme of Trump's litigation approach for years—from the Manhattan hush-money trial to the January 6 investigations—and the top officials running his current administration have taken his cue. The political fight matters more than the legal one, one senior official told me. 'Instead of using the old playbook of saying 'no comment' because there's pending litigation, you have top officials that are using the avenues they have to fight back and speak directly to the American people about what this administration is trying to do,' said the official, who agreed to discuss the approach candidly on the condition that I would not publish their name. The official said the strategy is designed to challenge judges who are 'thwarting the duly elected president from implementing his policies.' Although issuing public statements about ongoing litigation 'is unusual,' the person said, 'that's exactly what everyone who is a supporter of the president is looking for from his senior team.' The White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson defended that strategy. 'We are confident in the legality of our actions and do not apologize for acting to protect the American people,' she told me in a statement. But the approach has at times left Department of Justice lawyers stuck between what Trump officials say publicly and their professional and legal obligations to make truthful statements in court. When a senior ICE official said in sworn testimony in March that Abrego Garcia had been deported to El Salvador because of an 'administrative error,' the Justice Department attorney who initially represented the Trump administration, Erez Reuveni, relayed that characterization to the court. When asked why the administration hadn't taken steps to correct the error and bring Abrego Garcia back, Reuveni said his client—the Trump administration—hadn't provided him with answers. The top Trump aide Stephen Miller soon began insisting publicly that Abrego Garcia's deportation was not, in fact, an error—the opposite of what the government admitted in court. Vice President J. D. Vance claimed that Abrego Garcia is a 'convicted MS-13 gang member with no legal right to be here,' even though he has no criminal convictions in the United States or El Salvador. Attorney General Pam Bondi cast the error as missing 'an extra step in paperwork' and said that Abrego Garcia should not be returned. Reuveni was fired. Bondi said he had failed to 'zealously advocate' for the government. 'Any attorney who fails to abide by this direction will face consequences,' she told reporters. Trump and his top aides have made statements outside court that have undermined the legal positions staked out by government attorneys—at times with more candor than his lawyers. The president acknowledged during an interview last month with ABC News, for instance, that he could bring Abrego Garcia back by placing a phone call to the Salvadoran president. [Read: How the Trump administration flipped on Kilmar Abrego Garcia] Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, an attorney for Abrego Garcia, told me Trump and his top aides 'really are saying whatever they want to say in public, and then after the fact, trying to figure out what that means for their litigation, instead of the other way around, which is where they figure out what they want to do in their litigation and then they mold their public statements to that.' U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, who presides over the Abrego Garcia case, said during a recent hearing that Trump's claim was clearly at odds with his attorneys' contention that they could not compel a foreign government to release Abrego Garcia. Xinis also noted social-media statements by Department of Homeland Security officials saying Abrego Garcia will never be allowed to return to the United States. The judge said it sounded like an 'admission of your client that your client will not take steps to facilitate the return.' Jonathan Guynn, the government's attorney, said Trump's statement needed to be read with 'the appropriate nuance' and it was not 'inconsistent with our good-faith compliance.' 'What world are we living in?' Xinis said in frustration as Guynn ducked her questions. 'What sort of legal world are we living in?' Similarly, Trump officials have depicted Venezuelans sent to the prison in El Salvador as invaders and terrorists to justify the administration's attempt to use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. But the majority have no criminal convictions in the United States, and at least 50 of the roughly 240 sent to El Salvador entered the United States legally and did not violate U.S. immigration law, according to a new analysis by the Cato Institute. When U.S. District Chief Judge James E. Boasberg asked about a statement by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem—who said the megaprison in El Salvador was one of the tools it planned to use to scare migrants into leaving the United States—he questioned whether it was an admission that the U.S. government has control over the fate of the deportees it sends there. Another Justice Department attorney similarly argued that the statement lacked sufficient 'nuance.' 'Is that another way of saying these statements just aren't true?' Boasberg said. When Boasberg asked if Trump was telling the truth when he said he could get Abrego Garcia released with a phone call, the administration's attorney, Abhishek Kambli, said the president's statement should not be treated as a fact, but as an expression of 'the president's belief about the influence that he has.' Jeff Joseph, the president-elect of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, told me that Trump attorneys are twisting themselves into rhetorical knots because the administration officials conducting the deportation campaign are doing whatever they want, and coming up with a legal rationale later. The government attorneys have 'to sort of post hoc rationalize what they're doing,' Joseph said, 'but they're running afoul of the fact that it's actually against the law, and they just can't explain it.' 'They can't just come in and admit that they broke the law,' he added, 'so they have to come up with some sort of paltering way of addressing it.' The Abrego Garcia ruling and the Alien Enemies Act litigation have left legal scholars warning of a constitutional crisis. But a more tangible effect, attorneys told me, has been the erosion of the 'presumption of regularity'—the benefit of the doubt given to the government in court proceedings. It's based on the idea that federal officers and attorneys are operating in good faith, and not trying to achieve political goals through acts of subterfuge. As judges see the administration saying one thing in public and another in court, they have started to treat the government's claims with more skepticism and, sometimes, with outright suspicion of criminal contempt. A recent Bloomberg analysis found that the Trump administration has been losing the majority of its immigration-related motions and claims, regardless of whether the judges overseeing their cases were appointed by Democrats or Republicans. [Adam Serwer: 'A path of perfect lawlessness'] The White House is focused on political wins, and it has pushed back even harder at judicial oversight as the losses pile up. In a case challenging its attempts to send deportees to third countries if their own nations won't take them back, U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy ruled in March that the government had to give deportees time to challenge the government's attempts to send them to potentially dangerous places. Despite the order, Trump officials tried last week to deport a group of men from Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, and other nations to South Sudan. Murphy ruled that the flight violated his previous order mandating due process—but the Department of Homeland Security still convened a press conference to recite the criminal records of the deportees, calling them 'uniquely barbaric monsters.' The White House made an emergency appeal of Murphy's ruling directly to the Supreme Court on Tuesday, bypassing the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Adam Cox, a constitutional law professor at NYU, told me that the Trump administration's approach marks 'a sweeping transformation of past practices.' But he said it has also affirmed the importance of the lower courts to function as a powerful fact-finding body at a time when other oversight mechanisms are weakened or under attack. The courts' ability to compel sworn testimony is crucial to helping the public sort through political rhetoric to understand what's actually true. 'A lot of the focus of public debate around courts and politics has been (understandably) focused on the Supreme Court and big legal rulings,' Cox wrote to me. 'But recent months have brought a nice reminder of just how important the well-developed fact-finding mechanisms of federal trial courts can be.' Article originally published at The Atlantic

GOP breathes secret sigh of relief as courts put brakes on Trump tariffs
GOP breathes secret sigh of relief as courts put brakes on Trump tariffs

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

GOP breathes secret sigh of relief as courts put brakes on Trump tariffs

Republican lawmakers are breathing a sigh of relief that the courts are putting the brakes on President Trump's trade war, which has pummeled markets, created economic uncertainty and taken a bite out of Trump's own approval ratings. It's unclear who will win the final legal battle, which could end up in the Supreme Court. But Republicans for now are mostly hoping Trump takes a political win in the form of judicial decisions that could hold back his trade war or even put the tariffs on ice. 'I'm sure that Republican senators are secretly rooting for the Supreme Court to uphold the lower-court decision,' said Brian Darling, a GOP strategist and former Senate aide. He said GOP lawmakers are 'quietly applauding the decision' by two courts Wednesday and Thursday to halt Trump's tariffs 'because it saves them from having to deal with the tariff issue, which has proven to be unpopular.' 'They're very happy about the decision as long it takes it off the table for a long period of time and doesn't commence another round of tariffs by different means,' he said. In a way, these courts were taking actions that most Republicans couldn't, given the potential political costs of GOP senators taking Trump head-on over trade. 'Clearly, tariffs is an important issue for President Trump personally. It's something he's talked about and he's been pushing for a long, long time,' Darling said. 'Most Republican senators have no reason to go and talk about a tariff decision that blocks tariffs because they know it's not going to go over well on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.' One Republican who has been vocal in his criticism of the Trump tariffs is Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.). He applauded the court's ruling, arguing that the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, exclusive authority to tax imports. 'I have said time and time again that the Founders wanted to prevent one person from having unilateral control and decision-making powers. That's why the power of the purse and the ability to tax lie with Congress, not the president,' Paul posted on social platform X. The two decisions that went against Trump took place Wednesday night, when the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled the president had exceeded his authority to impose tariffs, and on Thursday, when a second federal court issued a separate ruling on similar grounds. Both decisions said he could not cite emergency economic powers to impose his tariffs. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit later Thursday lifted the first ruling blocking Trump's tariffs. The Trump administration is expected to appeal the decisions to the Supreme Court, which could weigh in as soon as Friday. GOP lawmakers have said for months they want to give Trump room to strike deals with foreign trading partners but with June only a few days away, the president has yet to show significant progress in his trade talks, other than a deal with the United Kingdom that did little to calm the financial markets. The three judges on the trade court who issued the summary judgment found that Trump exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977 to impose tariffs, blocking the reciprocal tariffs he imposed on almost every country in the world before later lowering them to 10 percent for a period of 90 days. The trade court also blocked the tariffs that Trump levied separately against Canada, Mexico and China in response to what the president identified as threats posed by drug-trafficking and illegal immigration. Senate Republicans who had criticized or expressed skepticism about Trump's tariff policies stayed mostly quiet Thursday in response to the court ruling, but GOP strategists say they are breathing a sigh of relief. A senior Senate Republican aide warned that Trump was risking his reputation on the economy by wielding tariffs as a weapon against trading partners, a tactic that has started to depress corporate earnings projections for the rest of 2025. Target, one of the nation's biggest retailers, last week cut its sales outlook for the rest of the year, citing weaker discretionary spending and consumer uncertainty because of tariffs. HP, the information technology company, cut its annual profit forecast Wednesday because of 'tariff-related costs.' Its shares plunged 14 percent before gaining back some ground later in the day. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has long expressed skepticism of using tariffs to build up the domestic economy. But he has muted his personal views on tariffs since becoming Senate GOP leader in January, telling reporters since then: 'I think everybody knows my views on tariffs.' At the same time, he noted that Trump won a decisive victory in the 2024 presidential campaign after running on a promise to use tariffs to negotiate better deals for the United States. Thune asked constituents at a public meeting last month to give Trump time to strike trade deals, urging patience 'to see what kind of deals he can strike.' Thune's home-state colleague, Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), has warned that tariffs are pinching farmers in South Dakota. Rounds told The Hill in March that while many farmers in South Dakota are 'really strong Trump supporters,' they wanted him to communicate to the president 'what tariffs are going to do' to their businesses. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) last month called tariffs a 'tax on American consumers.' 'I think it is a mistake to assume that we will have high tariffs in perpetuity. I don't think that would be good economic policy. I am not a fan of tariffs,' he told Fox Business host Larry Kudlow. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who faces a tough reelection race next year, said Trump and his top advisers need to show progress on trade deals before the end of June to create more certainty for businesses, warning that otherwise Republicans could face political headwinds in the election year. 'At the end of the day, the voters are largely driven by the question, 'Are you better off than you were fill-in-the-blank years ago?' And clearly if we have this kind of froth next year than it's a real challenge for Republicans,' Tillis said last month. The North Carolina senator, however, has to tread carefully on the issue as he faces a potential primary challenge next year. Tillis on Thursday pushed back against media reports about the TACO trade on Wall Street, in which speculators buy the dip in prices after Trump announces a new round of tariffs on the premise that 'Trump always chickens out' and then eases them. 'The media is citing 'unnamed' Wall Street hacks to attack President Trump,' he posted on social media. 'They've clearly never run a business or learned why adaptability is the key to success. Complex negotiations are not a straight line.' Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, on Wednesday was a rare GOP lawmaker who defended Trump's authority to levy tariffs in the wake of the trade court's ruling. 'I think it's pretty clear that the president has tariff authority. Congress gave it to him. You can debate whether that was a prudent move or not, but I think it's pretty clear that he has tariff authority,' he told Fox News host Laura Ingraham. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store