Open Thread: End of 2024-2025 Term, The Last Decisions
[NB: check the byline, thanks. /~Rayne]
We are finally at the end of this torturous SCOTUS term with six decisions expected today.
The most important in my opinion is Trump v. CASA, regarding the reach of a lower court order with regard to Trump’s ban on birthright citizenship.
Today’s decisions follow below and will be added to this post as released; any shadow docket decisions released today will follow in an update at the bottom of this post.
~ ~ ~
Trump v. CASA Inc. — Justice Barrett wrote the 6-3 decision, with the court breaking along ideological lines. Justice Sotomayor wrote a dissent for her, Kagan, and Jackson; Jackson also wrote a dissent.
See: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf
This case centered on district court decisions in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington blocking enforcement of Trump’s executive order banning birthright citizenship to persons born in the US depending on the status of their parents’ citizenship. SCOTUS in essence said district courts can only write orders narrowed to the case though birthright citizenship has been recognized since the passage of the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.
Kennedy v. Braidwood Management — Justice Kavanaugh delivered this 6-3 decision; Thomas wrote the dissent which Alito and Gorsuch joined.
See: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-316_869d.pdf
This case arose from right-wing Christianist attacks on preventative health care under ACA like PrEP intended to prevent HIV infection; they claimed it infringed on their religious rights “by making them complicit in facilitating homosexual behavior, drug use, and sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman.” (Never mind any first responders who might be on PrEP to protect themselves from incidental exposure.) The attack focused on the Appointment Clause attempting to sever the relationship between subordinate officers empaneled by HHS and policy execution; the case has had enormous repercussions affecting other preventative care under ACA.
Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research — Justice Kagan has the 6-3 decision; Gorsuch filed the dissent which Thomas and Alito joined.
See: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-354_0861.pdf
summary TK
Mahmoud v. Taylor— Justice Alito wrote the 6-3 decision; Thomas wrote a concurring opinion. Justice Sotomayor filed the dissent, joined by Kagan and Jackson.
See: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-297_4f14.pdf
summary TK
Free Speech Coalition Inc. v. Paxton — Justice Thomas has the 6-3 decision; Justice Kagan filed a dissent joined by Sotomayor and Jackson.
See: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1122_3e04.pdf
summary TK – though I must add RTFN:
Held: H. B. 1181 triggers, and survives, review under intermediate scrutiny because it only incidentally burdens the protected speech of
adults. Pp. 5–36.
Fuck any Free Speech rights minors may have, or the school district’s rights to determine PUBLIC SCHOOL curriculum because of right-wing Christianist freaks.
Louisiana v. Callais — This case was rescheduled for re-argument. Justice Thomas disagrees with this rescheduling and issued a dissent documenting his rationale.
See: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-109_l53m.pdf
summary TK
Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic — This case appears to have been pushed out to next week.
summary TK
I assume we’ll get any shadow docket cases next week as well, but I could be wrong; the last decisions weren’t all released today after all and I thought incorrectly they would be.
Trump v. Casa, about birthright citizenship. Amy Coney Barrett writes for the radical right majority that universal/nationwide injunctions, “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.” An odd formulation. Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor dissent. Jackson also writes a second, separate dissent.
The case nominally dealt only with nationwide injunctions, not birthright citizenship. But the majority created a chaotic minefield, since cases will have to be decided individually across the country, which assures that it will repeatedly rehear the case.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf
https://www.rawstory.com/birthright-citizenship-2672446163/
I guess I should have tasked you with writing this post, EoH.
(Rawstory, though? Really?)
It’s a news aggregator, true, but you’ll note I included a cite for the case itself. :-)
The Guardian now has this:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/27/trump-supreme-court-birthright-citizenship-scotus
Imagine the cases that individual radical right district court judges in Texas will now generate and feed up the chain.
Does this decision pertain to just this case, or all future national injunctions? Could it mean the injunctions against Joe Biden’s policies are null?
The law isn’t what has been taught in law schools for generations. Court orders now only bind individual plaintiffs, so every person must file suit to determine their individual citizenship.
Throw away your legal tomes, they are obsolete.
Over-exaggerating helps no one, thanks.
Sotomayor begs to differ:
Emphasis mine.
I’ll just put a link here to my mistakenly placed THREAD re: this decision:
https://www.emptywheel.net/2025/06/26/open-thread-scotus-decisions-end-of-term-ahead/#comment-1101670
But, I want to reiterate Mark Joseph Stern’s comment [see link for more]:
Also, as I noticed in the link, I think,
BARRETT mentions JACKSON 12 times in her majority Opinion.
Doesn’t seem normal. [?]
The decision atomizes the ability to enforce the constitutional order. It does more than limit nationwide injunctions, it requires each aggrieved individual to litigate separately. A massive burden. Congress, of course, could fix this, but only after it fixes itself.
So this should be challenged individually in all 50 states or at least all 12 appellate districts. I have zero doubt that there will be an inconsistent rulings (i.e. between the 9th and the 5th) and that will force SCOTUS to rule for all jurisdictions.
The silver lining is that this ruling wipes out the Amarillo judge’s abuse of injunctions, abetted by the 5th Circuit. It’s mighty thin, though because there will be real harm to innocents pending piecemeal address of grievances over extended periods of time.
I also wonder whether SCOTUS understands they’ll need to grant cert for everyone.
Except that the grant of cert. is discretionary. The Court only needs to accept the cases it disagrees with, to smack down an ornery lower court or circuit.
However, if the Circuits disagree or if the following from Article II Section 2 second paragraph applies “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. …”
This can be forced, i.e. by the Canadian ambassador trying to address the death of their citizen in ICE custody. It’s about destroying the abuse of executive orders where Convict-1 / Krasnov / TACO is treating them like statutes passed through Congress. I do know that for a long time the Philippines had a special status regarding USN opportunities, and I would not be surprised that there are kids with parents who used those privileges.
In the words of the late Jill Sobule, I think I’ll go get drunk and depressed.
Thank you for quoting Jill. She would be so, so saddened by this SCOTUS and what this administration has been doing to the rule of law, it’s citizens, and the role play happening on the world stage.
I haven’t posted in a while, and it’s OT, but Jill Sobule was so witty, and fun live; she is greatly missed.
[Welcome back to emptywheel. THIRD REQUEST: Please use the SAME USERNAME and email address each time you comment so that community members get to know you. You attempted to publish this comment and four others today as “Knowa Tall” triggering auto-moderation; it has been edited to reflect your established username as of 14-OCT-2022. Please check your browser’s cache and autofill; future comments may not publish if username does not match. WARNING: You have been previously warned about failing to use the same username each time you comment having amassed eight different usernames. Your email address and all eight usernames are going into an auto-moderation list until you learn to stick with the same username. After a fourth and final warning, failure to use the same username will result in banning from commenting. /~Rayne]
This case sickens me, and it’s based in Trump’s denigration of birthright citizenship:
It’s an abuse of this soldier’s son, it’s an abuse of their family, it’s yet another slap in the face to any active duty service person serving abroad who may be expecting a child.
Pro-life my ass. Pro-defense, my ass.
So let’s see, first they demonstrate their bigotries, and make a convincing case that women and/or minorities are not wanted in today’s US military. And that will create havoc up and down the ranks and the recruiting.
This is going to be very interesting for the Trump family. Melania was not a US citizen when Barron was born. I wonder where he will be deported to ? /
Perhaps where Melania should be deported, because you know she didn’t do everything she was supposed to do up to becoming a citizen.
Heck, do we know for certain she’s a citizen?
I would love to see hearings into that, exploring how a young undocumented woman may/may not have been trafficked under the guise of modeling.
Are we sure that President Musk is a legal citizen? He’s admitted to lying on his paperwork, like Melania did.
You mean “modeling”, right ?
I looked into becoming a Canadian citizen. My paternal grandmother was born there. I tried to find out if she ever became a naturalized U.S. citizen. It turns out that there is no Federal naturalization database, at least for folks of my Nana’s generation. When you completed the naturalization process and took the oath, you got a certificate. There are probably carbon copies, but they were held in local city halls and such. Hmmm, maybe I’m not really a U.S. citizen, given the Justices’ avoidance of the birthright question.
I once saw The Mothers of Plaza de Mayo procession in Buenos Aires. Will we someday have our own?
That has been asked a lot. I suspect you aren’t completely serious but anyway the EO preserves the child’s citizenship if its *biological* father is a citizen or greencarder.
I suppose someone could demand a paternity test for Donald/Barron.
Neither was Ivana a citizen when all three of her children were born: Don Jr., Eric and Ivanka.
Exactly! I’ve been wondering about that too!
The reason the son was not granted birthright citizenship is because the naturalized father had not satisfied the physical presence in US requirement, likely due to overseas assignment, in order to pass on his citizenship. Even native born citizens have to lived in the US for a specific time in order to pass on citizenship to children born overseas. I believe the physical presence requirement is 5 years, at least 2 of them after 14 years old.
It’s still a ridiculous story that he’s in Jamaica with no legal status there either. The excuse for deporting him was because of multiple felony convictions.
Everyone is entitled to due process. I’m not seeing that here.
No one has a problem with white parents on military assignment. The birth gets reported and registered.
“US Supreme Court preserves key element of Obamacare preventive care”
https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/us-supreme-court-expected-rule-obamacare-preventive-care-task-force-2025-06-27/
Another 6-3 decision, written by Kagan, upholds Congress’s authority to delegate power to the FCC, and its authority to delegate power further. Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito dissent. Sad.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-354_0861.pdf
Gorsuch remembers his family history, with mom atop the EPA. Congress not only delegated to the EPA certain powers, but also required them to be used in certain specific ways with which Momma Gorsuch profoundly disagreed.
When she failed to do so, by withholding Superfund funds to clean up a site in southern CA in order to affect a political campaign, she was forced to resign.
Neil has not forgotten.
For those who don’t remember: it’s the Stringfellow Acid Pits. Rita Lavelle was convicted of perjury, and Gorsuch the mother resigned.
Thank you, P J. I’m sorry to say that I DO remember the Rita Lavelle conviction; Gorsuch mere made little impression on me at the time.
So a question that I can’t find an answer for and I see conflicting information on: does this mean that a district court’s opinion will affect only the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, or the entire district?
Let’s say a district rules in favor of birthright citizenship after a lawsuit brought by a certain plaintiff. Does it automatically apply to anybody in the district without requiring a lawsuit by each person?
I have the same question.
Generally it only applies to the plaintiffs. However, no court will rule differently on similar facts so other people can rely on it in their own cases.
However, it may be that if other plaintiffs file to protect themselves in the same district they may get a different judge who might rule differently. That should be rare, because the second parties can claim that their case is like the first and the clerk may assign it to the same judge. But it can and occasionally does happen.
As I understand it, though, each plaintiff can be forced to go through the entire process by an adversarial Federal prosecutor. IOW, a ruling for another individual under identical circumstances would not preclude subsequent case involving another.
[Moderator’s note: see your comment at 29-JUN-2025 08:49 AM ET. /~Rayne]
Alito writes 6-3 decision in Mahmoud, the Maryland schools case, that allow parents to opt out of school’s LGBTQ+ program. Sotomayor writes dissent, with Kagan and Jackson joining.
Sotomayor, really angry, says this decision will set back public school education for decades, as she reads her dissent from the bench. The decision would not limit parental opt-outs to LGBTQ+ material.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-297_4f14.pdf
The Guardian’s take on the Mahmoud case.
Faith grounds, my ass. This is religious preference that mocks the notion of religiously neutral pubic schools. As commentators are saying, opt-outs would quickly become unmanageable, meaning school boards would simply not teach their students remotely contentious subject matter.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/27/supreme-court-lgbt-book-ban-case-ruling
It’s a faith that belongs only to conservatives, preaching that differences are Sins and people who are different in any way are Less Than.
Just watched Bad Faith, a new movie which details the decades long efforts to overturn US democracy and replace it with strong-armed Calvinism.
[Moderator’s note: see your comment at 29-JUN-2025 08:49 AM ET. /~Rayne]
Time get back to teaching that Earth is the center of the universe.
These fucking people.
It may be time to water the plants with Brawndo, which the plants love.
“Faith.” Once again taken as a universally agreed-upon standard, comma, “Christian.”
It is never examined, even at the most rudimentary level beyond plaintiffs’ claim to membership in this or that “Christian” congregation, neither in this court nor any other. There is never any inquiry as to just what “Faith” means/dictates/sanctions to plaintiffs, how plaintiffs have come to an understanding of the meaning/dictates/sanctions which have led to their belief, and how any perceived aspersion or infringement of that belief by others who do not share it — serve to denigrate or de-legitimate plaintiff’s “Faith.”
Although six Justices consistently rule otherwise, this *cannot* be what Founders meant in the Establishment Clause.
I agree that conservatives often overly universalize “Christian” to be the default agreed-upon religious standard, and that their version of Christian is the only legitimate definition of the term.
That said, two of plaintiffs in this case are Muslim, two are conservative Roman Catholics, and the last is a group pushing for parents’ rights. The majority opinion did delve into what the faith of the plaintiffs is and how it motivated their requests of the school district and ultimately their decision to take them to court (see opinion pp. 11ff.)
You can criticize this decision on a lot of grounds, but saying that there was “never any inquiry” as to the plaintiffs’ faith is completely wrong.
The problem I see is that the Court’s majority waived away balancing competing interests and assumed that religious objections took precedence over every other free speech claim and the interests of every public school system in the country.
replying to Peterr:
I read that in addition to the groups you mentioned, the plaintiffs included Greek Orthodox petitioners.
to Peterr on June 27, 2025 at 1:54 pm
re: Mahmoud.
Apologies for the belated response to your reply. My “Never any inquiry” was clearly overheated.
That said, I find both the Court’s response and the plaintiffs’ complaints, both represented on grounds of belief alone, pretty thin soup.
ALITO: “Many Americans, like the parents in this case, believe that biological sex reflects divine creation, that sex and gender are inseparable,…”p. 3-4
MAHMOUD AND BARAKAT are Muslims who believe “…that mankind has been divinely created as male and female” and “…that ‘gender’ cannot be unwoven from biological ‘sex’…” p.17
THE ROMANS are Catholic & Ukrainian Orthodox who “…believe that “sexuality is expressed only in marriage between a man and a woman for creating life and strengthening the marital union,” and “…that gender and biological sex are intertwined and inseparable…” p.18
THE PERSAKS are Catholics who believe “that all humans are created as male or female, and that a person’s biological sex is a gift bestowed by God that is both unchanging and integral to that person’s being,…” p. 19
MORRISON and her husband are Catholics who believe that “…marriage is the lifelong union of one man and one woman and that gender…is ‘interwoven’ with sex.” p.19-20
Not a biblical or Quranic citation from text, no citations of commentary, no reference to a papal declaration or mufassir’s tafsir relevant to the question. And while the three Catholic couples do actually represent the Church’s most recent view on transgender persons in their complaints (see Dignitas Infinita, 2024) they do so without appealing to auctoritas. Which is odd. The PERSAKS mix a complaint based on belief with an issue of political ideology. The MORRISON’S mix a complaint based on belief with an issue of IDEA student accommodation.
In the end, is it *really* enough simply to assert personal belief in order to compel others conform their own lives to a belief they may neither hold nor even find credible, mooting, as EoH notes above, the idea of religiously-neutral public education?
(The view of Catholic marital sex referenced by the Romans, by the way, is one that largely went the way of hula hoops in the wake of Vatican II.)
The evidence in this case concerned LGBTQ related content. John Adams was a Unitarian, who rejected traditional Christian doctrines like the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were both deists. Will the Unitarians file suit when a teacher says “The founders were Christian?” Who knows anymore? Everything in education becomes alternative facts litigated by the local mob. What safe attribution can a “heartland” biology teacher now give for the vestigial teeth of baleen whales? The fossil record? Is there a religious injury that occurs when a teacher promotes bullshit in their classroom? St. Augustine said “All truth is God’s truth.” Could Catholics sue to protect their children?
Coalition v. Paxton, a “free speech” case, decision written by Thomas. Buckle up. The usual trio dissent.
Thomas upholds restrictive Texas law that requires websites to verify age when hosting sexually explicit material. Says that only “intermediate scrutiny” applies to this form of free speech, and that Texas’s law passes that test.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1122_3e04.pdf
Well, I’m sure that will end porn in Texas.
There’s probably a legislator’s exemption somewhere in that bill.
Or at least set up some interesting Grandpa-Grandson conversations . . .
Grandpa: “Damn! What’s wrong with my computer? Bubba, your tech-challenged Grandpa needs your help.”
Grandson Bubba: “Sure Grandpa. <Looks at the computer> Oh, I see the problem . . . < types furiously setting up a VPN > Here you go.”
Grandpa: “Thanks . . . but this stays between us, right? Grandma has no need to know about this.”
Bubba: “Of course. And mom doesn’t need to know why I come to hang out at your place more often, right?”
Grandpa: “You’re just a loving grandson looking out for his grandpa who can’t figure out his TV remote control and his computer.”
<cue the mutual maniacal laughter>
A state notorious for extending the gap in “acceptable” personal behavior between Saturday night and Sunday morning.
These dumb shits don’t understand VPNs and proxies. There’s so many workarounds, and no way to enforce this, and it’s mind boggling how computer illiterate these people are, from start in Texas, to end in SC.
Kennedy v. Braidwood Mgt, 6-3, holds that HHS task force managers are inferior offices of the USG and serve at the discretion of the Sec’y of HHS.
Kavanaugh’s opinion. Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch dissent.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-316_869d.pdf
Unusually, Court extends its business another week.
How far back does the birthright ruling reach? My grandfather immigrated through Ellis Island in 1915. He never learned a word of English. I have no idea if he ever got naturalized. If not, does that mean my father was never a citizen? And if my dad was never a citizen, how can I be? Supreme Court rulings can be applied retroactively, but who decides how far back? Who will decide any exceptions? What an f’ing mess.
Since I’m on a roll, we should also stop calling ourselves the United States of America. Instead, we should be the 50 States of America since your civil rights are now determined by where you live. A court ruling in one state no longer applies to other states. A ruling in Northern California will not apply in Southern California. The states are no longer united. Trump’s autocracy has finally arrived.
Feels like legal autarky.
However far back they decide removal of birthright citizenship should apply (and IMO it should never apply), it won’t apply to The Felon Guy and his third wife, because Reasons.
Yes. The Trump Immigrant Crime Family should have their citizenships removed. Germany isn’t sending us their best!
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t think the Extreme Court decided birthright citizenship. More, just that courts can’t issue nationwide injunctions against Trump’s illegal and unconstitutional actions. Or, at least that one.
I do find it interesting that Trump’s grandfather came to America as a draft dodger and illegal immigrant himself. It runs in the blood, apparently. Gramps went back to Germany, and got kicked out because of his draft dodging. So he and his pregnant wife came back to America, where shortly later, she gave birth to Trump’s father, Fred. I believe Fred got birthright citizenship.
Following Nazi precedent, I would suggest the standard will be that if you have one grandparent who is not a citizen, then you are considered not a citizen as well.
You think Steven Miller et al. wouldn’t go for the very American “one drop” standard, beloved by American racists going back to 1619?
To state the obvious, if you think about it, one has 4 grandparents – two on your maternal side and two on your paternal side.
Hey, Fly by Night, that’s the first thing that came to my mind as well. We should no longer be called the United States of America.
And now that I’ve given it more thought, if we are no longer United, why do we need a Supreme Court? Seems wasteful to have one now. Let’s DOGE it and just rely on the courts that remain. Seems like that would be the practical and sensible thing to do. /s
If we want to save money we could fire the corrupt judges and not replace them.
The States no longer United? This discussion is starting to remind me of something…something I thought I’d heard happened here, long ago…when the states fell into a great division against each other and the central government was forced to defend itself at a then unimaginable cost of blood and treasure…
But it’s only the vaguest of memories. Not sure I can even pin it down anymore; all I find when I search for “our history” is one after another assertion of How Very Great We Are And Have Always Been.
Fast forward to fascism.
If I understand your question correctly: if your mother was at least on a permanent residency visa at the time of your birth, the EO would not have applied. And it doesn’t apply retroactively anyway, so at least for now your own birthright citizenship is valid.
I actually don’t know the statutory pre-requirements for naturalization using Article 1 powers, so that’s another possible path.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick observes:
https://bsky.app/profile/reichlinmelnick.bsky.social/post/3lslubm5hws27
June 27, 2025 at 10:33 AM
I wonder how “every single lower court judge who has been working like a dog to deal with the firehose of illegal orders coming out of this administration” feels about this.
I wonder that about all the people involved in the J6 and Stolen Documents case, as well.
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lsgvx3fzxy22
June 25, 2025 at 11:19 AM [VIDEO] [Senator MURRAY at Hearing]
Is it legal to get sick?
Only if you’re rich.
NEW: Fast reaction to CASA Opinion
https://bsky.app/profile/reichlinmelnick.bsky.social/post/3lslzj74ohk2d
June 27, 2025 at 12:07 PM [Both comments accessible here]
^^^ planning ahead, strategizing outcomes, covering all the bases, is the definition of playing 3D chess. Ya’ gotta be one-up ahead of these Trumpy yahoos.
If Reichlin-Melnick is correct–that a class-action suit being certified and granted relief would indeed have the same effect as a nationwide injunction–why wasn’t that the first (or a concurrent) option taken by those trying to fight the EO?
Anyone?
Because it’s more complicated, time consuming, and expensive to certify a class action than to persuade a court – certainly on these facts – to issue an injunction because the executive clearly violated the Constitution.
Steve Vladeck lays out some of the reasons certifying a class is harder and more limited in scope than seeking a nationwide injunction would have been.
https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/162-what-does-the-birthright-citizenship
Thank you, earl. I knew the complicated, time consuming and expensive part; I’d been assuming those stumbling blocks wouldn’t stop the folks at Democracy Docket or other determined and well-funded advocacy organizations. But I appreciate both your answers. Vladeck is especially helpful at a time like this.
So are you.
Barrett seems to think throwing a bunch of 18th C. English common law into her opinion is useful. It just makes her look like what she is, a second-rate academic with no practical experience in life or law practice.
She seems to think her pedantry about the difference between a Class Action under FRCP Rule 23 and a universal injunction has some practical value. But the lower courts are onto her game. In some of the deportation cases, the courts have begun certifying class actions consisting of, for example, all the caged humans in ICE detention centers in a Texas district.
This case is not the right vehicle for this issue. In one case, 22 State AGs point out that kids who are US citizens in, say, Illinois, aren’t citizens in any of the 28 non-filing states, and risk deportation if they go to Cape Canaveral on a field trip for space camp. How can they be afforded complete relief absent a universal injunction? I hope they make that precise argument to the lower courts on remand and force the hand of the weaselly Barrett.
Here is the relevant part of Rule 23: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_23
Then there are procedural steps and a variety of costs, and a bunch of notice requirements. I think, but don’t know, that there are standard ways to deal with those, so they shouldn’t be prohibitive, just cumbersome. In the Texas case, the District Judge certified the class provisionally so it could rule quickly enough to protect the class members who were being loaded onto buses.
The problem with this decision is that laid out by Justice Jackson:
Here’s Barrett’s response to this:
This is typical of the Trump Judges: everything is divided into two categories; there are never any intermediate choices.
Ed, I want to thank you for your repeated explanations of how legal (or, as in this case, legalistic) distinctions play out practically. I’m not a lawyer but my research has involved reading a lot of legal documents; I think I’m good at that, but nothing can substitute for the expertise that you and the other real lawyers bring.
Barrett’s writing has often impressed me (not so much the CASA case), but you’re helping me realize that what she appeals to is my own academic orientation, which is simply inadequate as a judge’s sole basis for evaluation.
If only she would listen to Jackson, who does know what she’s talking about here.
The Evil Six *are* an imperial Judiciary, working for an undeclared emperor who will tolerate them just as long as they support everything he wants.
Rugger9 makes a good point. This is going to put Matthew Kacsmaryk in a pickle. What would the class be for his crazy nationwide injunction against mifepristone? Thomas and Alito caution the lower courts against liberalizing class actions to enable nationwide injunctions. Maybe they’re talking to him?
SCOTUS gives Trump special dispensation for lawlessness. The decay of people’s rights is despicable. Nauseating.
I realize this open thread is for SC decisions, but the DOJ just forced the president of UVa to resign, or risk the university losing millions of dollars in funding. The reason? Supposedly he did not really eliminate all DEI initiatives like he was supposed to, just dropped the name and such. Senators Kane and Warner just put out a statement condemning the “Trump Department of Justice” and calling it a “ridiculous ‘culture wars’ trap.”
DOJ should know that EOs aren’t laws and don’t legally apply to anyone outside the federal government.
But they’re The Felon Guy’s attorneys, now, and have to do what he wants at that moment or be fired.
The rationale for James Ryan’s forced resignation was pretext. Trump’s move is part of his overarching campaign to denude higher education and the culture generally of leaders that do not kowtow to him.
Ryan’s purported fault was also having been an effective implementer of DEI programs at UVa, arguably the South’s top public university and one of the best in the nation, and earlier in his career. He was removed to install a quisling and to reinforce Stephen Miller’s threat that no one should follow his model.
The DOJ acted despicably again, but we must not let the Board off the hook for being such cowards and folding that quickly. I’m on the opposite coast, but rest assured if it happened to either of my alma mater universities they would be hearing about it and facing down a thousand alumni doing the same. I hope that happens here
Apparently the firing was instigated by 2 DOJ lawyers who just happen to be UVa graduates. It didn’t even come from Bondi. This raises several questions – was this just two disgruntled alumni with a grudge against Ryan? Are DOJ underlings running the show? Is there going to be a report as to what exactly UVa is alleged to have done, or not done, in implementing Trump’s executive order?
You can bet in the upcoming gubernatorial election this will be an issue. Abigail Spanberger is a UVa graduate, as are tens of thousands of other Virginia voters.
The UVA Board of Governors could have stood up to DOJ. They did not. From the outside, it looks as if they too used the two UVA alums burrowed into DOJ as a means to achieve an end many of the Board wanted. DOJ could be serving more as shield than sword.
More vengeance for Jan 6:
https://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/article/justice-department-abruptly-fires-3-prosecutors-20398239.php
I hope there are lawsuits in response since retaliatory firing of federal employees is illegal.
And when DOJ appeals to SCCOTUS, they’ll rule for the government – or rather, for The Felon Guy.
162. What Does the Birthright Citizenship Ruling Portend/ Friday’s ruling in Trump v. CASA
will fundamentally alter the relationship between federal courts and other government institutions. How much depends upon three questions the decision left unanswered.
https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/162-what-does-the-birthright-citizenship
Steve Vladeck Jun 27, 2025
SCOTUS conservatives end “universal injunctions” in birthright citizenship cases Justice Barrett wrote the 6-3 decision that created more complications than it provided answers. Stark dissents questioned the ruling’s effect on the rule of law. https://www.lawdork.com/p/scotus-conservatives-end-universal
Chris Geidner Jun 27, 2025
Several of them need to turn in their law licenses and their JDs, because they’ve forgotten everything they should know.
The Supreme Court’s Blitzkrieg Against the Federal Judiciary and The Rule of Law The CASA decision’s sweeping elimination of checks on executive power. https://data4democracy.substack.com/p/the-supreme-courts-blitzkrieg-against
Adam Bonica [Professor of Political Science at Stanford] Jun 27, 2025
Marcy RePosted this:
https://bsky.app/profile/sammerchant.bsky.social/post/3lsmc4pffqk2p
June 27, 2025 at 2:41 PM [Law Prof: Con Law, Crim Pro, Sentencing, Habeas at Minnesota Law]
In a significant ruling, the US Supreme Court declared that schools are required to honor religious objections by permitting children to be excused from listening to storybooks with LGBTQ+ themes.