Latest news with #SoniaSotomayor
Yahoo
18 hours ago
- General
- Yahoo
Justice Thomas Nears Historic Milestone, Eyes Longest-Serving Supreme Court Record
Justice Clarence Thomas marked a major milestone Thursday, tying the late Justice Joseph Story as the ninth-longest-serving Supreme Court justice in U.S. history. The tie comes after 12,273 days on the nation's highest Court. Thomas, 76, has long been a pivotal and often polarizing figure on the bench, and his tenure shows no signs of ending soon. Barring retirement or health complications, Thomas is on track to rise even higher on the longevity list, potentially becoming the longest-serving justice in history by August 2028 — just months before the next presidential election. If he serves another 20 days beyond Thursday, Thomas will surpass Chief Justice William Rehnquist for the eighth-longest tenure. Within months, he would eclipse judicial giants, including Chief Justice John Marshall and Justice Hugo Black, the Alabamian who currently holds the fifth-longest term with 12,448 days. Thomas's longevity on the Court comes at a time when health and age are increasingly relevant topics for the justices. While Thomas is the oldest current member, fellow septuagenarian Justice Sonia Sotomayor has also faced health challenges in recent years. Retirement rumors occasionally swirl, but Thomas has given no public indication of stepping down. Appointed by President George H.W. Bush and confirmed in 1991 after a bruising and historic confirmation battle, Thomas has become the Court's longest-serving current justice and its most senior voice. Known for his textualist approach and willingness to question decades of precedent, Thomas has played a central role in reshaping American constitutional law, particularly in areas like gun rights, affirmative action, and administrative law. For much of his early tenure, Thomas was known for his silence during oral arguments, often going years without asking a single question. But in recent years, he has become more vocal from the bench. His writings have drawn both fierce criticism and admiration, particularly his concurrences and dissents, which often lay the groundwork for future rulings. Thomas will match the service of Joseph Story, an influential early justice appointed by President James Madison in 1811 at the age of just 32 — the youngest justice in Supreme Court history. Story helped shape foundational doctrines in American law and was especially influential in the development of maritime and commercial law. His writings, including Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, remain widely studied by legal scholars. Story served until his death in 1845 after nearly 34 years on the bench. As Thomas continues toward breaking more longevity records, the political implications loom. Justices in the modern era typically avoid retiring in the months leading up to a presidential election, in part to prevent their seat from becoming a flashpoint. But if Thomas is still on the bench in late 2028 — and if the presidential race is closely contested — the possibility of his successor may become a major issue for both parties and the electorate. Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death in 2020, just weeks before the presidential election, led to a contentious and rapid confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett. That episode highlighted how crucial Court appointments can be to the political process, especially when timing intersects with electoral cycles. Whether Thomas seeks to retire or remain on the bench, one thing is increasingly clear: his presence — and the legacy he leaves — will remain a major part of the Court's history and the country's political conversation for years to come.
Wall Street Journal
3 days ago
- General
- Wall Street Journal
Nationwide Injunctions? Only if the Supreme Court Has Spoken
Nationwide injunctions came before the Supreme Court in an emergency oral argument this month. The justices are clearly concerned about the practice, in which a lone federal trial judge can block a government policy even if other judges have upheld it. But the government failed to offer a satisfactory solution. There is, however, a clean and simple fix that the court itself could effectuate. Solicitor General John Sauer argued that nationwide injunctions are flat-out unconstitutional. In response to a question from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, he said that means even the Supreme Court couldn't issue one—a position the justices are unlikely to favor.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Supreme Court lets Trump admin. strip protections for people from 4 countries
The Supreme Court ruling on Friday again cleared the way for the Trump administration to strip temporary legal protections from hundreds of thousands of immigrants, pushing the total number of people who could be newly exposed to deportation to nearly 1 million. The justices lifted a lower-court order that kept humanitarian parole protections in place for more than 500,000 migrants from four countries: Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. The court has also allowed the administration to revoke temporary legal status from about 350,000 Venezuelan migrants in another case. Trump's administration filed an emergency appeal after a federal judge in Boston blocked its push to end the program. In a dissent joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson wrote that the majority is having 'the lives of half a million migrants unravel all around us before the courts decide their legal claims.' MIT bans class president who gave pro-Palestine speech from commencement Tainted by state's drug lab scandal, seized property hangs in balance as US high court weighs taking up case Why the fight over foreign students at Harvard has some US students leaving, too The piece of the Mass. budget that passes all understanding | John L. Micek Quincy residents sue mayor over controversial statues for new public safety building Read the original article on MassLive.
The Guardian
3 days ago
- Business
- The Guardian
Supreme court allows White House to revoke temporary protected status of many migrants
The US supreme court on Friday announced it would allow the Trump administration to revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants living in the United States, bolstering the Republican president's drive to step up deportations. The court put on hold Boston-based US district judge Indira Talwani's order halting the administration's move to end the immigration humanitarian 'parole' protections granted to 532,000 people by Trump's predecessor, Joe Biden, potentially exposing many of them to rapid removal from the country, while the detailed case plays out in lower courts. As with many of the court's emergency orders – after rapid appeals brought the case to their bench – the decision issued on Friday was unsigned and gave no reasoning. However two of the court's three liberal-leaning justices, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor, publicly dissented. The court 'botched' its assessment of whether the administration was entitled to freeze Talwani's decision pending the litigation, Jackson wrote in an accompanying opinion. The outcome, Jackson wrote, 'undervalues the devastating consequences of allowing the government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending'. Jackson also said that 'it is apparent that the government seeks a stay to enable it to inflict maximum pre-decision damage.' She added that those living under parole protections in this case now face 'two unbearable options'. One option is to 'elect to leave the United States and thereby, confront 'dangers in their native countries,' experience destructive 'family separation' and possibly 'forfeit any opportunity to obtain a remedy based on their … claims', Jackson wrote. The other option is that they could remain in the US after parole termination and 'risk imminent removal at the hands of government agents, along with its serious attendant consequences'. To Jackson, 'either choice creates significant problems for respondents that far exceed any harm to the government … At a minimum, granting the stay would facilitate needless human suffering before the courts have reached a final judgement regarding the legal arguments at issue, while denying the government's application would not have anything close to the kind of practical impact.' Immigration parole is a form of temporary permission under American law to be in the country for 'urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit', allowing recipients to live and work in the US. Biden, a Democrat, used parole as part of his administration's approach to handling migrants entering at the US-Mexico border. Such a status does not offer immigrants a long-term path towards citizenship but it can typically be renewed multiple times. A report from the American Immigration Council found that halting the program would, apart from the humanitarian effect, be a blow to the US economy, as households in the US where the breadwinners have temporary protected status (TPS) collectively earned more than $10bn in total income in 2021 while paying nearly $1.3bn in federal taxes. Trump called for ending humanitarian parole programs in an executive order signed on 20 January, his first day back in office. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) subsequently moved to terminate them in March, cutting short the two-year parole grants. The administration said revoking the parole status would make it easier to place migrants in a fast-track deportation process called 'expedited removal'. The case is one of many that the Trump administration has brought in an emergency fashion to the nation's highest judicial body seeking to undo decisions by judges impeding the president's sweeping policies, including several targeting immigrants. The supreme court on 19 May also let Trump end TPS that had been granted under Biden to about 350,000 additional Venezuelans living in the United States, while that legal dispute plays out. Jackson was the only justice to publicly dissent then, while House Democrats condemned the supreme court's decision. In a bid to reduce unauthorized border crossings, Biden starting in 2022 offering limited extra pathways to come to the US legally, allowing Venezuelans who entered the US by air to request a two-year parole if they passed security checks and had a US financial sponsor. Biden expanded that eligibility process to Cubans, Haitians and Nicaraguans in 2023 as his administration grappled with high levels of illegal immigration from those countries. The plaintiffs in this case, a group of migrants granted parole and Americans who serve as their sponsors, sued administration officials claiming they violated federal law governing the actions of government agencies. Talwani in April found that the law governing such parole did not allow for the program's blanket termination, instead requiring a case-by-case review. The Boston-based first US circuit court of appeals declined to put the judge's decision on hold and the government appealed. The justice department told the supreme court that Talwani's order had upended 'critical immigration policies that are carefully calibrated to deter illegal entry', effectively 'undoing democratically approved policies that featured heavily in the November election' that returned Trump to the presidency. The plaintiffs told the supreme court they would face grave harm if their parole is cut short given that the administration has indefinitely suspended processing their pending applications for asylum and other immigration relief. They said they would be separated from their families and immediately subject to expedited deportation 'to the same despotic and unstable countries from which they fled, where many will face serious risks of danger, persecution and even death'. Reuters contributed reporting
Bloomberg
3 days ago
- General
- Bloomberg
Supreme Court Clears Trump to Strip 500,000 of Legal Status
The Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to immediately end temporary legal status for migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, affecting up to half a million people. The court's order clears the way for the Department of Homeland Security to end so-called parole programs, which gave migrants temporary legal status, and marks the second time in less than two weeks the justices have opened hundreds of thousands of migrants to possible deportation. The decision was met with dissent from Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor, who argued that the court "undervalues the devastating consequences of allowing the government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending." Bloomberg's Greg Stohr reports. (Source: Bloomberg)
