Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court narrowly ruled against President Donald Trump in his attempt to fire a Federal Reserve governor.

The court voted 5-4 to deny the president's request to stay a lower court's injunction that prevented him from firing Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook, and the majority rejected the government's argument that the president's decision was not reviewable by the courts.

With “little fanfare,” the Supreme Court is quietly working to double its own police force, Politico’s Josh Gerstein reported on Sunday, a push that justices and court officials apparently “loathe” discussing.

“The push for a rapid security buildout stems from the substantial threats to the justices at a moment of growing political violence in the U.S. and the sense that the system has just not been up to the task of keeping them safe,” Gerstein wrote. “That’s a belief that appears to be shared by at least some of the justices themselves.”

After yet another 6-3 Supreme Court ruling that handed Donald Trump’s administration one more victory, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson called out her conservative colleagues over their betrayal of existing green card holders.

According to The Independent, the ruling came down in Blanche v. Lau, which agrees with the administration that, if a green card holder leaves the U.S. and then returns, a border official can arbitrarily declare they may have committed a possible crime and therefore can revoke and confiscate their green card without evidence, putting them in a "legal limbo."

The case centered on Muk Choi Lau, a lawful permanent resident who returned from a short trip to China in 2012. A border officer placed him on immigration parole after he was accused of counterfeiting crimes. Lau later pleaded guilty to selling counterfeit clothes in New Jersey, but argued the officer had overstepped authority in triggering deportation proceedings, the report notes.

The conservative majority Supreme Court disagreed, with Thomas reasoning that, "Border officers did not have the burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Lau had committed a crime involving moral turpitude."

Jackson, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, unleashed a fierce counterattack, writing that the majority's ruling "cavalierly swept aside" the rights of green card holders and handed the government a "massive blank check" to rewrite immigration law as it sees fit at the moment.

The decision allows the government to upend a green card holder's status upon return to the U.S. "so long as the government is able to show later that he was eventually convicted," Jackson noted— calling it an astonishing reversal of the "burden of proof" standard.

"That sequencing undermines the plain terms and basic operation of the relevant statutory scheme, which guarantees that lawful permanent residents will not be 'regarded as seeking an admission' at the border unless certain exceptions apply," she added.

The Supreme Court is set to decide whether to take up a case that "we should all be worried" about, Alexis Romero wrote for Slate on Wednesday — and it concerns a power the Trump administration has long sought, and lower federal courts have long curtailed.

Specifically, the case could decide just how long the federal government is allowed to hold migrants in Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention — which the Trump administration believes it can do indefinitely.

While the public has been focused on the occasional high-profile clash between President Donald Trump and the Supreme Court, the court's conservative supermajority has been quietly using the shadow docket to hand Trump something far more consequential — effective control of the federal government — and legal analysts say that work is now largely complete.

That is the central argument of a new piece by Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern in Slate, who say the popular narrative of a principled Chief Justice John Roberts standing up to Trump conceals a far more troubling reality.

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson took aim at her colleagues Monday with a blistering rebuke of what she labeled as their “unusual” move, one that she claimed had been done no more than three times in the last quarter century, The Washington Post reported Tuesday.

Jackson was referring to the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in late April when it voted to effectively gut a provision of the Voting Rights Act designed to prohibit racially discriminatory voting policies. The court was deciding on a matter related to Louisiana's congressional district map, with Republicans having challenged a lower court’s order requiring state lawmakers to create a second majority-Black district.

The U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision that gutted racial protections for voting rights under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act rests on misleading claims about voter turnout, according to a new analysis.

Justice Samuel Alito claimed in his majority opinion that Black voter turnout had exceeded white voter turnout in two of the previous presidential elections, both nationally and in Louisiana, and The Guardian reported the conservative jurist's assertion was copied almost word-for-word from a friend-of-the-court brief filed by the Department of Justice.