A legal expert called out the irony in the majority opinion of a Supreme Court decision upending immigration protections for thousands.
Leah Litman, a veteran legal analyst, spoke about the Supreme Court decision in Mullin v. Doe during an appearance on MS NOW. The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in a decision that sided with the Trump administration and will take temporary protected status away from Haitians and Syrians.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion and shot down the defense's argument that the Trump administration was motivated by racial animus to take away TPS from Haitians and Syrians, a decision that will take away their immigration protections.
According to Litman, the majority opinion ruled that comments made by Trump during his 2024 presidential campaign that accused Haitians of eating cats and dogs "did not count as overtly racial." However, Litman asked, "Given that, what would it take to be considered overtly racial?"
Justice Alito "did not even have the strength to reprint the comments that the president made," Litman said. "In the opinion that excused those comments as not racist, and if you are unwilling to reprint, recite the comments from the person you say isn't racist, maybe that is a sign that it is racist."
She also pointed to a decision in Louisiana v. Callaistwo months ago. In the majority opinion for that case, Justice Alito wrote that "when Congress attempted to get states to draw districts that were actually representative of a multiracial democracy, namely complying with the Voting Rights Act, that, Sam Alito said, was racism," Litman said.