RawStory

Supreme Court

'To do with babies of slaves': Trump announces 'giant win' with history lesson

Donald Trump on Friday announced his big win at the Supreme Court in a birthright citizenship case.

"GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court! Even the Birthright Citizenship Hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "It had to do with the babies of slaves (same year!), not the SCAMMING of our Immigration process."

Keep reading... Show less

Supreme Court sets off 'alarm bells' that it's 'in the bag' for Trump: analyst

In a discussion about the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in the birthright citizenship case, legal analysts explained that the court's ruling should be setting off "alarm bells" about this court.

Speaking on MSNBC, host Ana Cabrera noted that there were numerous nationwide injunctions related to executive orders issued under Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden. She asked why now does the court decide to change these rules.

Keep reading... Show less

'Enabling our demise': Justice Jackson rips high court over citizenship decision

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson accused the high court's conservative majority of hastening the "demise" of government institutions by handing President Donald Trump a huge victory in its decision on birthright citizenship.

In a 6-3 decision Friday, the court held that universal injunctions were improper and exceeded the power of the federal courts. In other words, lower courts must now "fight out" citizenship issues.

Keep reading... Show less

Supreme Court drops major ruling on Trump's birthright citizenship order

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday gave the Donald Trump administration a major victory in its attempt to end birthright citizenship.

The U.S. Constitution says that any person born in the U.S. is considered an American.

Keep reading... Show less

'Especially vocal' Supreme Court Justice alienated from her colleagues: expert

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has been “especially vocal” against President Donald Trump’s agenda, and CNN Chief Supreme Court Analyst Joan Biskupic believes it's alienated her from her colleagues on the high court.

The remarks came ahead of the final days of the Supreme Court’s term, according to CNN This Morning anchor Audie Cornish.

Keep reading... Show less

'Nothing to see here': Legal experts outraged by Supreme Court's new ruling

The Supreme Court ruled against transgender youth on Wednesday by upholding a ban that the Tennessee legislature passed into law.

Legal analysts were deeply disturbed by the justification using the Equal Protection Clause to decide United States v. Skrmetti on Wednesday.

Keep reading... Show less

'We'll see': Hegseth suggests he could disobey Supreme Court on troops in cities

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth suggested to Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) that he might ignore an order from the U.S. Supreme Court requiring him to withdraw troops from U.S. cities.

During a Wednesday hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Hirono noted that Hegseth had a "tough start" in his position.

Keep reading... Show less

'Forcefully disagrees': Liberal justice breaks Supreme Court protocol in dissent

Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor was so upset with the majority conservative decision upholding a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming care for minors, that she broke a longstanding protocol when writing her dissent.

The court voted 6-3 Wednesday. Sotomayor wrote the dissent for the liberal justices.

Keep reading... Show less

'We've been watching this case': Supreme Court issues ruling in reverse bias row

The U.S. Supreme Court sided with a straight woman who filed a “reverse discrimination” lawsuit against her employer after her gay boss passed over her for a promotion that went to a gay colleague.

The unanimous decision issued Thursday would make it easier to file such challenges in some parts of the country, and CNN's Paula Reid explained the implications of the case as president Donald Trump has made it a priority to roll back diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

Keep reading... Show less

'I'm the movement': Reporter exposes Trump's reasons for feud with GOP mainstay

President Donald Trump has been privately fuming about the U.S. Supreme Court justices he nominated and publicly feuding with the conservative mainstay that recommended them, and a veteran reporter explained why the rift has developed.

The president has been griping for at least a year about justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and, especially, Amy Coney Barrett, according to multiple sources, and his anger has been fueled by right-wing allies like Laura Loomer, who have been telling Trump they're not in line with the MAGA movement, and NOTUS reporter Evan McMorris-Santoro told "CNN This Morning" what's fueling this dynamic.

Keep reading... Show less

'Patently insufficient': Justice Jackson hammers 'botched' pro-Trump ruling

In a dissent included in an unsigned order released by the Supreme Court on Friday, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson scolded her colleagues for not giving enough serious consideration to all parties involved in an emergency appeal from Donald Trump's Department of Justice.

As the New York Times reported, the majority ruled in favor of the president by revoking a policy put in place under former President Joe Biden that is allowing more than 500,000 immigrants to stay in the U.S. temporarily on humanitarian grounds.

The ruling means immigrants from Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Haiti now face the threat of being swiftly deported while their individual cases are still under review in the U.S.

EXCLUSIVE: Breastfeeding mom of US citizen sues Kristi Noem after being grabbed by ICE

The court wrote an "order entered by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts ... is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically."

That earned a scathing response from Justice Brown Jackson that the majority had screwed up.

"The Court has plainly botched this assessment today," she wrote. "It requires next to nothing from the Government with respect to irreparable harm. And it 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."

She advised, "Even if the Government is likely to win on the merits, in our legal system, success takes time and the stay standards require more than anticipated victory. I would have denied the Government’s application because its harm-related showing is patently insufficient. The balance of the equities also weighs heavily in respondents’ favor."

"While it is apparent that the Government seeks a stay to enable it to inflict maximum predecision damage, court-ordered stays exist to minimize — not maximize — harm to litigating parties," she asserted.

You can read the filing here.

Legal expert shows how GOP Supreme Court justices are like a 'Mean Girls' clique

University of Michigan Law School Professor Leah Litman spoke to Mehdi Hasan on Thursday about her new book, which details the way that conservatives on the Supreme Court have "embraced" "unabashed lawlessness."

The book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes, uses a lot of pop culture references to make complex legal matters more straightforward for non-lawyers.

Keep reading... Show less

Analysis exposes dark message sent by Supreme Court’s 'radical' judicial actions

The U.S. Supreme Court “has undermined lower courts” and “effectively allowed the president to neutralize some of the last remaining sites of independent expertise and authority inside the executive branch,” University of Pennsylvania law professor Kate Shaw warns. And doing so could have a catastrophic impact of the rule of law in the country.

Shaw, writing for the New York Times, discussed a recent decision by the Supreme Court to “stay” rulings from the U.S. District Courts and the full D.C. Circuit. That ruling permitted President Donald Trump to fire high-level officials — a move previously considered “unlawful under existing precedent.”

Shaw in her essay argues against the “unitary executive theory” and its proponents’ “singular fixation on the president’s power to fire — a power the Constitution doesn’t expressly give the president.”

READ MORE: CNN’s Tapper corners House speaker claiming he ‘doesn’t know’ about Trump’s lavish crypto dinner

“Even if you disagree — even if you think that Article II’s grant of ‘the executive power’ to the president includes the power to fire at will any high-level official in the executive branch — the court’s disposition of the case sends a profoundly dangerous message to the White House,” Shaw warns. “…Handing the president a win here suggests that the administration did not need to abide by Congress’s statutes or the Supreme Court’s rulings as it sought to change legal understandings.”

“This decision risks emboldening the administration further to act outside of our traditional constitutional order,” she adds.

Shaw writes:

Keep reading... Show less