Latest Headlines

The day before Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett took a highly-criticized personal shot at Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, fellow conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch also sniped at his liberal colleague.

According to a report from Politico on increased tensions within the nation's highest court, as the 6-3 conservative majority continues to use the "shadow docket" to hand Donald Trump questionable wins, Politico is reporting that Brown Jackson's opinions, often in dissent, are getting under the skin of conservatives justices.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett was called out on Saturday morning for her thin-skinned and personal response to a dissent written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Writing the 6-3 conservative majority opinion that handed the Donald Trump administration a win with its birthright citizenship ruling, Coney Barrett took a dismissive shot at Brown Jackson observations by writing, "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."

She then added. “We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”

Appearing on MSNBC's "The Weekend," Slate legal analyst Mark Joseph Stern called Coney Barrett's personal attack "arrogant" and "out of bounds."

Addressing Brown Jackson's dissent, he told the hosts, "I think Jackson's blows clearly landed here, and Barrett responded with, what I do agree is a far too personal retort that accuses Justice Jackson of not really being smart enough, I think, to levy a strong criticism of her opinion. That's totally out of bounds, it's highly unusual, even when the justices disagree, they usually do so respectfully."

RELATED: 'Tempers are high' on Supreme Court after 'jarring' exchange: legal expert

"And here Barrett is going much further and I think the reason why is really obvious, right?" he continued. "Justice Jackson's dissent is one of the sharpest, fiercest, most blunt dissents we've ever seen. She is taking on the Supreme Court as an institution and the conservative super majority. It's one of several dissents she published this term where she accused the super majority on the right of bias toward the Trump administration, of surrendering the rule of law so that Trump can rule like a king."

"This is how the majority sees the country, that they really believe Trump should rule it with no limits and, you know, I think after this decision, it's kind of hard to argue with that, right?" he observed. "The majority sees a policy that is so patently unconstitutional and rather than understand that that's the emergency that courts need to address, it turns around and smacks down the lower courts and says, 'You went too far.'"

"So Jackson's criticism there was entirely appropriate and for Justice Barrett to act so wounded and respond so personally is really out of bounds, disrespectful and arrogant," he concluded.

You can watch below or at the link:

The US Federal Reserve's preferred inflation measure logged a mild uptick Friday while spending weakened, triggering another tirade by President Donald Trump against the central bank chair for not cutting interest rates sooner.

"We have a guy that's just a stubborn mule and a stupid person," Trump told an event at the White House, referring to Fed Chair Jerome Powell. "He's making a mistake."

The Wall Street Journal's conservative editorial board issued a blistering rebuke of the U.S. Supreme Court in a Friday opinion piece where it blasted its latest 6-3 ruling on taxation as “the most disappointing decision” of the term – and accused the justices of ripping apart a core constitutional protection against government overreach.

The case that drew the editorial board’s ire on Friday centered on a Federal Communications Commission program created by Congress in 1996 to fund “universal service” in telecom access. The FCC levies what amounts to taxes on providers and consumers to fund the program, and has delegated the authority to collect those fees to a private nonprivate.

A federal judge on Friday delivered a stinging blow to President Donald Trump’s push to punish elite law firms, ruling that one of his executive orders was riddled with “grave constitutional violations,” according to NPR.

U.S. District Judge Lauren AliKhan permanently blocked Trump’s executive order targeting the prestigious firm Susman Godfrey, calling the presidential directive “unconstitutional from beginning to end." The decision is “the latest in a series of legal wins for firms” representing clients or causes the president dislikes and marks the fourth consecutive time a federal judge has struck down a Trump order aimed at Big Law, NPR noted.

Nike is warning that Donald Trump’s tariffs will soon cost U.S. consumers at the cash register, saying sneaker prices will jump this fall as the president’s trade war with China escalates.

The sportswear giant said the tariffs could cost it $1 billion, and the company is now preparing “surgical” price hikes this fall to soften the blow, according to a new report in the Independent.

The Wall Street Journal's conservative editorial board applauded the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. CASA, which significantly limited how district courts use nationwide injunctions as a check on Presidential power.

"This is a positive development in many ways, given the dysfunctions that universal injunctions encourage," the editorial board wrote. "If halting any new White House policy requires convincing only a single federal judge in any favorable forum anywhere in the U.S., Democrats will gladly run to California, and Republicans to Texas. All-or-nothing emergency appeals then rise to the Supreme Court, as critics accuse the Justices of settling substantive questions on a 'shadow docket.' That’s the experience of recent years."

The U.S. Army is now rolling out a new policy that disproportionately impacts Black soldiers, and one officer is questioning the motivations behind the announcement.

Military.com reported Friday that the Army is now planning to prohibit shaving waivers, requiring all soldiers to adhere to strict new grooming standards. Previously, soldiers who suffered from the skin condition pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB) were allowed to ask for a waiver to bypass requirements to stay clean-shaven, as PFB patients can often have painful bumps and scarring from the use of a razor.

Gov. Greg Abbott, AG Ken Paxton do not have to release Uvalde or Jan. 6 emails, Texas Supreme Court rules

"Gov. Greg Abbott, AG Ken Paxton do not have to release Uvalde or Jan. 6 emails, Texas Supreme Court rules" was first published by The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them — about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues.

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.