Latest news with #AmyConeyBarrett
Reuters
4 days ago
- Politics
- Reuters
US judge weighs putting new block on Trump's birthright citizenship order
BOSTON, July 18 (Reuters) - A federal judge on Friday could deal another blow to President Donald Trump's attempts to limit birthright citizenship, even though a U.S. Supreme Court decision last month made it more difficult for lower courts to block White House directives. A group of Democratic attorneys general from 18 states and the District of Columbia will urge U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin at a hearing in Boston at 10 a.m. ET Friday to maintain an injunction he imposed in February that blocked Trump's executive order nationwide. The order directs U.S. agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States after February 19 if neither their mother nor father is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. The states' case is back in Sorokin's courtroom so he can assess the impact of the Supreme Court's landmark June 27th decision. In that 6-3 ruling authored by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the court directed lower court judges like Sorokin that had blocked Trump's policy to reconsider the scope of their orders. Rather than address the legality of Trump's executive order, the justices used the case to discourage nationwide, or 'universal,' injunctions — in which a single district court judge can block enforcement of a federal policy across the country. But the court raised the possibility that universal injunctions are still permissible in certain circumstances, including class actions, in which similarly situated people sue as a group, or if they are the only way to provide "complete relief" to litigants in a particular lawsuit. Friday's hearing will shed light on how lower courts plan to address what providing complete relief entails, said George Washington University law professor Paul Schiff Berman. "One of the questions the Supreme Court left open in its nationwide injunction decision is whether states can assert claims on behalf of their citizens and, if so, whether a large-scale injunction would then be necessary to vindicate the rights of large numbers of citizens from large numbers of states," Berman said. Spokespersons for the White House and the attorneys general did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A ruling from Sorokin, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, in favor of the states would be the second blow to Trump's executive order this month. On July 10 at a hearing in New Hampshire, U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante, an appointee of Republican president George W. Bush, issued a nationwide injunction blocking Trump's order after he found that children whose citizenship status would be threatened by it could pursue their lawsuit as a class action. The Democratic-led states, backed by immigrant rights groups, argue the White House directive violated a right enshrined in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment that guarantees that virtually anyone born in the United States is a citizen. They have argued that, if the executive order is allowed to take effect, it would wreak havoc on the administration of federal benefits programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program by making it difficult to verify eligibility. They also argue that, because children often move across state lines or are born outside their parents' state of residence, a "patchwork" of injunctions would be unworkable. "Families are likely to be confused if federal benefits eligibility — let alone U.S. citizenship — differs by State," the states wrote in a July 15 court filing. They have urged Sorokin to double down on his February injunction, saying in the court filing that the Supreme Court decision has no bearing on the case before him. "This Court correctly remedied the States' injuries via a nationwide injunction, based on the same complete-relief principle that the Supreme Court recently recognized and endorsed," the brief argued. The Justice Department has countered that Sorokin's injunction from February was "clearly overbroad and inappropriate." In a July 8 court filing, the department argued that individuals are best situated to litigate their own citizenship status.
Newsweek
15-07-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
Amy Coney Barrett's Biggest Supreme Court Allies Revealed
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. Justice Amy Coney Barrett has remained a consistent member of the Court's conservative bloc during the 2024–25 term but her voting patterns showed nuance in key areas, new analysis shows. Despite MAGA backlash at some of her moves, Barrett voted most frequently with conservative-leaning justices, according to empirical figures from SCOTUSblog. Barrett agreed most with Justice Brett Kavanaugh (91 percent) and Chief Justice John Roberts, reflecting a continued center-right alignment, it said. Barrett voted least often with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (68 percent), Justice Neil Gorsuch (72 percent) and Justice Sonia Sotomayor (74 percent), the analysis found. While her overall rate of agreement with the majority was in the lower-mid range among justices, she occasionally sided with liberals in procedural or technical rulings. Why It Matters American public confidence in the judiciary has been increasing divided and perception of partisnaship at an all time high, Barrett's votes—though largely conservative—may come under heightened attention for any deviation from ideological orthodoxy. The ideological balance of the Court has fundamentally shifted in recent years, with six of its nine justices appointed by Republican presidents—Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—and three nominated by Democratic presidents justices, and typically represent the Court's liberal minority—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. U.S. Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett talk before President Joe Biden delivers the State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress in the House Chamber at the U.S.... U.S. Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett talk before President Joe Biden delivers the State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress in the House Chamber at the U.S. Capitol on February 7, 2023 in Washington, D.C. MoreWhat To Know In the 2024-25 term, Justice Barrett sided with the Court's majority in 81 percent of opinions, which from a total of 61 cases, places her in the minority in 12 decisions—typical for a reliably conservative justice who occasionally breaks from the bloc. Her minority votes do however, reflect a notable level of judicial independence, often stemming from her textualist and proceduralist approach. Some prominent examples include: Environmental Regulation Case : Barrett joined the three liberal justices to dissent in a closely watched pollution case, arguing that the majority misinterpreted statutory text—highlighting her willingness to break from conservative norms in favor of legal clarity : Barrett joined the three liberal justices to dissent in a closely watched pollution case, arguing that the majority misinterpreted statutory text—highlighting her willingness to break from conservative norms in favor of legal clarity Emergency Aid Freeze Case : She again aligned with liberals and Chief Justice Roberts to reject an emergency order freezing foreign aid, showing sensitivity to executive overreach : She again aligned with liberals and Chief Justice Roberts to reject an emergency order freezing foreign aid, showing sensitivity to executive overreach Jan. 6 Obstruction Ruling: Barrett shared a dissent with Sotomayor and Kagan, criticizing the majority's narrow interpretation of obstruction statutes related to the Capitol riot In early March, Justice Barrett joined Chief Justice Roberts and the court's three liberal justices in rejecting the Trump administration's request to freeze nearly $2 billion in USAID payments. For many MAGA figures, this wasn't just judicial restraint—it was a betrayal. Shortly after, Barrett voted against the Trump administration's position again, this time in a 5–4 decision concerning use of the Alien Enemies Act for deporting alleged gang members. She sided with the court's liberal justices in dissenting from the majority, which angered right‑wing activists who saw her as undermining Trump's authority For MAGA supporters, Barrett's judgments during these high‑profile disputes—arguably the most emblematic of Trump's agenda—crossed a line. Despite his increasingly vocal criticism of perceived disloyalty from within the conservative legal sphere, President Donald Trump has notably refrained from publicly turning on Barrett. His early investment in Barrett remains evident. At her 2020 swearing-in, Trump lauded the Notre Dame law professor as "one of our nation's most brilliant legal scholars," and insisted she would "faithfully interpret the Constitution, not legislate from the bench." The Supreme Court of the United States continues to draw national attention as a powerful arbiter of American law, increasingly perceived as driving jurisprudence in a conservative direction. A Gallup poll, conducted September 3 to 15, 2024 among 1,007 adults, suggested 58 percent of Americans view the court as conservative. Trust in the judicial branch, especially among independents, has declined sharply—reaching just 48 percent, among the lowest levels in decades. While 69 percent of Republicans say the Court's ideological stance is "about right," 82 percent of Democrats believe the Court is "too conservative." The pollster reported a margin of error of ±4 percentage. The Context Justice Barrett's jurisprudence reflects a commitment to originalism and textualism—interpretative methods closely associated with the conservative legal movement. In key rulings on abortion, executive authority, and agency deference, she has reinforced rather than moderated the court's conservative trajectory. Barrett's scholarly background sometimes leads to more technical legal reasoning, and while she occasionally diverges from her conservative peers in limited circumstances, these instances are rare and generally do not shift the outcome of major cases. The court's conservative majority has left a profound mark on landmark decisions involving abortion, gun rights, affirmative action, presidential immunity, and the power of federal agencies. In Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the Court overturned Roe vs. Wade, eliminating the constitutional right to abortion after nearly 50 years. It expanded gun rights in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association vs. Bruen (2022) and most recently, in Trump vs. United States (2024), it recognized broad presidential immunity for official acts—ruling in Trump's favor. In Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard and its companion case against the University of North Carolina (2023), the Court dismantled race-conscious college admissions policies. And in Loper Bright Enterprises vs. Raimondo (2024), the Court effectively overturned the Chevron doctrine, a 40-year precedent that had granted deference to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous laws. This decision, along with a companion ruling limiting agencies' authority to enforce regulations in their own administrative courts, signals a broader effort to curtail the power of the executive branch. What People Are Saying Professor Harold Krent of Chicago-Kent College of Law said in a July 2025 interview with Bloomberg Law's June Grasso, Barrett has largely sided with the Court's conservative majority. "No, it doesn't surprise me at all," Krent said when asked about Barrett's high rate of voting with the majority. "Obviously, those three justices—Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett—wield a lot of the power on this current court, and they will do so for the foreseeable future." Krent noted that the Court "continues to lean conservative" and that its ideological center has shifted further to the right, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh, often considered a pivotal vote, has effectively become the Court's "median justice." President Doanld Trump, responding to a question in June about recent backlash that Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett has received from some of his MAGA supporters critical of her recent remarks from the bench on the Trump administration's bid to end birthright citizenship, said: "I just have great respect for her. I always have. And her decision was brilliantly written today, from all accounts." White House principal deputy press secretary Harrison Fields told CNN in statement in June: "President Trump will always stand with the U.S. Supreme Court, unlike the Democrat Party, which, if given the opportunity, would pack the court, ultimately undermining its integrity. The President may disagree with the Court and some of its rulings, but he will always respect its foundational role."
Washington Post
15-07-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
What the left – and right – gets wrong about Amy Coney Barrett
Ilya Shapiro is director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute and author of 'Lawless: The Miseducation of America's Elites.' Amy Coney Barrett can't catch a break. After she issued the majority opinion in Trump v. CASA — limiting the power of district courts to issue nationwide injunctions — the left came down on her, hard. Progressive commentators decried her decision to curtail restrictions on executive orders, calling it 'an existential threat to the rule of law itself.'
Fox News
11-07-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
JONATHAN TURLEY: Justice Jackson plays pundit to dismay of SCOTUS colleagues
I wrote recently about the chilling jurisprudence of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who has drawn the ire of colleagues in opinions for her rhetoric and extreme positions. Many have expressed alarm over her adherence to what has been described by one as an "imperial judiciary" model of jurisprudence. Now, it appears that Jackson's increasingly controversial opinions are serving a certain cathartic purpose for the far-left Biden appointee. "I just feel that I have a wonderful opportunity to tell people in my opinions how I feel about the issues, and that's what I try to do," Jackson told ABC News. Her colleagues have not entirely welcomed that sense of license. The histrionic and hyperbolic rhetoric has increased in Jackson's opinions, which at times portray her colleagues as abandoning not just the Constitution but democracy itself. Her dissent in the recent ruling on universal injunctions drew the rebuke of Justice Amy Coney Barrett over what was described as "a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush." "We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself," Barrett wrote. "We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary." Jackson, however, clearly feels that opinions are a way for her to opine on issues of the day. She is not alone. Across the country, liberal judges have been adding their own commentary to decisions in order to condemn Trump, his supporters, and his policies. I previously wrote about this pattern of extrajudicial commentary. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, an Obama appointee who previously presided over Trump's election interference case, was criticized for failing to recuse herself from that case after she made highly controversial statements about Trump from the bench. Chutkan lashed out at "a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day." That "one person" was still under investigation at the time, and when Trump was charged, Chutkan refused to let the case go. Later, Chutkan again added her own commentary when asked to dismiss a case due to Trump pardoning January 6 defendants. She acknowledged that she could not block the pardons, but proclaimed that the pardons could not change the "tragic truth" and "cannot whitewash the blood, feces and terror that the mob left in its wake. And it cannot repair the jagged breach in America's sacred tradition of peacefully transitioning power." One of Chutkan's colleagues, Judge Beryl Howell, also an Obama appointee, lashed out at Trump's actions, writing, "[T]his Court cannot let stand the revisionist myth relayed in this presidential pronouncement." Then there is Judge Amit Mehta, another Obama appointee, who has been criticized for conflicted rulings in Trump cases and his bizarre (and ultimately abandoned) effort to banish January 6 defendants from the Capitol. Last week, Mehta had a straightforward question of jurisdiction concerning a challenge to the denial of grants by the Trump administration. While correctly dismissing the challenge, Mehta decided to add his own commentary on Trump's priorities and policies: "Defendants' rescinding of these awards is shameful. It is likely to harm communities and individuals vulnerable to crime and violence. But displeasure and sympathy are not enough in a court of law." For Jackson, her opinions have at times left her isolated on the Court. Weeks ago, Jackson and Sotomayor were alone in dissent over the defiance of a district court judge of the Court's decision on universal injunctions. To her credit, Justice Elena Kagan (who voted with Sotomayor and Jackson in dissent in the earlier case) voted with her conservative colleagues in rebuking Judge Brian Murphy in Boston. Kagan joined in the reversal of Murphy's conflicting order and wrote the new order "clarifies only one thing: Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial." This week, Jackson lost even Sotomayor and stood alone in her dissent in support of an injunction over plans to downsize the government. Sotomayor observed that the Trump order only directed agencies to plan for such downsizing and said that the courts could hardly enjoin such policy preparations in the Executive Branch. However, Jackson could and would. The controversial position of Jackson on the Court is not due to her liberal views. We have had many such liberal jurists. The difference is how Jackson views her role as a justice. The danger is not confined to opinions. For years, justices have yielded to the temptations of public speaking before supportive groups. I have long been a critic of what I called the era of "celebrity justices," where members seem to maintain political constituencies at public events. Such speeches not only undermine the integrity of the Court by discussing matters that may come before it, but they can create a desire to maintain the adoration of supporters. The greatest danger is that justices will consciously or subconsciously pander to their bases with soundbites and inflammatory rhetoric. Judicial advocacy from the bench has been a concern since the founding. Article III can have a corrosive impact on certain jurists who come to view themselves as anointed rather than appointed. Most judges and justices are acutely aware of that danger and struggle to confine their rulings to the merits of disputes, avoiding political questions or commentary. The "opportunity to tell people how I feel" can become a slippery slope where opinions become more like judicial op-eds. The Court is not a cable show. The price of the ticket to being "one of nine" is that you should speak only through your opinions and only on the narrow legal matter before you. Opinions must remain "opportunities" to do simple justice, not a supreme editorial.
Yahoo
11-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Perspective: Now is the time for Congress to protect all children from porn
Last month, the Supreme Court struck a blow against Big Porn. In a 6-3 vote, the court ruled in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton that a Texas law requiring age verification to access pornography sites is constitutional. This decision upholds statutes like Utah's SB 287, as well as dozens of similar laws around the country. And it paves the way for federal legislation that would protect all children across the United States. At the heart of the case was whether porn companies have an absolute right to feed their obscene content to children and whether digital age-verification is constitutional. Since the early days of the internet, the court has recognized a compelling government interest in protecting kids online. But a decade before the iPhone was invented, the court determined in Reno v. ACLU that filtering software was more effective at protecting kids and less burdensome on adults' First Amendment rights than age-verification. The court's confidence in filtering software was predicated on a fundamental misunderstanding of the internet. In Reno, Justice John Paul Stevens opined on behalf of the court that 'the Internet is not as 'invasive' as radio or television,' and 'users seldom encounter [pornographic] content accidentally.' Few predictions have so completely missed the mark. During oral arguments for Paxton, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a mother of seven, summarized what has happened: 'Kids can get online porn through gaming systems, tablets, phones, computers. … I think the explosion of addiction to online porn has shown that content filtering isn't working.' The facts support Barrett. A 2022 report from Common Sense Media found that about 3 out of 5 kids (58%) have encountered pornography accidentally — 54% of them by age 13 or younger. And parents are desperate for help to keep their kids from encountering algorithmically tailored hardcore porn. As new research by Jonathan Haidt shows, 72% of American parents agree with the statement 'When I think about my child's experience growing up, I wish mature online content had never been invented.' In other words, the Reno opinion was wrong about the reach of the internet. Dead wrong. Early exposure to pornographic content can have devastating consequences. Pornography is highly addictive. Studies have shown that 1 out of 3 Americans seek out porn at least once a month. And those who view it regularly are at higher risk to experience sexual dysfunction, engage in risky sexual behavior, and be physically and verbally aggressive. Adolescents who intentionally view porn are more likely to sexually harass their peers and engage in child-on-child sexual abuse. Despite these known harms, porn websites — unlike brick-and-mortar establishments — have been allowed to operate for decades without age-gating their content. Estimates of the revenue of the global porn industry range from $58 billion to $287 billion annually, surpassing the revenue of the NFL, NBA and MLB combined. Porn companies addict children to sexually explicit content so that they will become repeat customers, ensuring profits for years to come. With the court's recent ruling, however, Big Porn's exploitation of America's children comes to an end. As Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, argued: 'Only an age-verification requirement can ensure compliance with an age-based restriction. The need for age verification online is even greater. Unlike a store clerk, a website operator cannot look at its visitors and estimate their ages. Without a requirement to submit proof of age, even clearly underage minors would be able to access sexual content undetected.' By upholding Texas's right to age-verify traditionally age-restricted, obscene content, the Supreme Court's decision means that other states are within their rights to take similar action to stop porn sites from feeding obscene content to minors. But the ramifications of this ruling extend much further. Paxton, simply put, empowers Congress. Big Porn is not just potentially barred from accessing children in red states, where laws like this have been passed by the dozens. Porn companies can now be stopped from addicting any American child. All Congress has to do is act. Now that online age verification for porn sites has been upheld as constitutional under Paxton, federal legislation requiring the same, such as Utah Sen. Mike Lee's SCREEN Act, can be passed with confidence that it will withstand legal challenges. This is especially important as the bill would make such commonsense safeguards the law of the land, eliminating technical loopholes afforded by the current patchwork of state laws. With the Paxton ruling, the court has vindicated the important work of policymakers, child safety experts and parents who have worked tirelessly to protect kids from the devastation of digital pornography. No longer will porn companies be allowed to feed their 'smut' — as Justice Elena Kagan described it in oral arguments — to minors without consequence. And no longer must families live in fear or powerlessness when it comes to protecting their kids online. Paxton promises a much brighter future for the children of the digital age. It's up to Congress to seize it. Jared Hayden is policy analyst with the Family First Technology Initiative at the Institute for Family Studies. Michael Toscano is senior fellow and director of the Family First Technology Initiative at the Institute for Family Studies.
