Supreme Court (US)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares132 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Aides Insist That Tariffs Will Remain, Even After Court Ruling

      by

      One official said that the president is unlikely to delay his initial 90-day pause on some of his highest rates.President Trump’s top economic advisers stressed on Sunday that they would not be deterred by a recent court decision that declared many of the administration’s tariffs to be illegal, as they pointed out a variety of additional authorities that the White House could invoke as it looks to pressure China and others into negotiations.They also signaled that Mr. Trump had no plans to extend an original 90-day pause on some of his steepest tariff rates, raising the odds that those duties — the mere announcement of which had roiled markets — could take effect as planned in July.“Rest assured, tariffs are not going away,” Howard Lutnick, the commerce secretary, said during an appearance on “Fox News Sunday.”Asked about the future of the president’s so-called reciprocal tariffs, first announced and quickly suspended in April, Mr. Lutnick added, “I don’t see today that an extension is coming.”The president’s tariff strategy entered uncharted political and legal territory last week after a federal trade court ruled that Mr. Trump had misused an emergency economic powers law in trying to wage a global trade war.The decision would have put a quick halt to those duties, which form the centerpiece of the president’s strategy of pressuring other countries into trade talks. But an appeals court soon granted the government a brief administrative pause to sort out arguments in the case, which is expected to reach the Supreme Court.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares73 Views

      in Elections

      Trump, Bashing the Federalist Society, Asserts Autonomy on Judge Picks

      by

      The president has grown increasingly angry at court rulings blocking parts of his agenda, including by judges he appointed.President Trump appears to be declaring independence from outside constraints on how he nominates judges, signaling that he is looking for loyalists who will uphold his agenda and denouncing the conservative legal network that helped him remake the federal judiciary in his first term.Late Thursday, after a ruling struck down his tariffs on most imported goods, Mr. Trump attacked the Federalist Society, leaders of which heavily influenced his selection of judges during his first presidency.“I am so disappointed in The Federalist Society because of the bad advice they gave me on numerous Judicial Nominations,” Mr. Trump asserted on social media. “This is something that cannot be forgotten!”Hours earlier Thursday, the Justice Department severely undercut the traditional role of the American Bar Association in vetting judicial nominees. A day before, Mr. Trump picked a loyalist who has no deep ties to the conservative legal movement for a life-tenured appeals court seat, explaining that his pick could be counted on to rule in ways aligned with his agenda.Together, the moves suggest that Mr. Trump may be pivoting toward greater personal involvement and a more idiosyncratic process for selecting future nominees. Such a shift would fit with his second-term pattern of steamrolling the guardrails that sometimes constrained how he exercised power during his first presidency.But it could also give pause to judges who may be weighing taking senior status, giving Mr. Trump an opportunity to fill their seats. Conservatives have been eyeing in particular the seats of the Supreme Court justices Clarence Thomas, who will turn 77 next month, and Samuel A. Alito, 75.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares124 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme Court Allows Trump Administration, for Now, to End Biden-Era Migrant Program

      by

      The Trump administration had asked the court to allow it to end deportation protections for more than 500,000 people facing dire humanitarian crises in their home countries.The Supreme Court on Friday allowed the Trump administration, for now, to revoke a Biden-era humanitarian program intended to give temporary residency to more than 500,000 immigrants from countries facing war and political turmoil.The court’s order was unsigned and provided no reasoning, which is typical when the justices rule on emergency applications.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, dissented, saying the majority had not given enough consideration to “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.”The ruling, which exposes some migrants from Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Haiti to possible deportation, is the latest in a series of emergency orders by the justices in recent weeks responding to a flurry of applications asking the court to weigh in on the administration’s attempts to unwind Biden-era immigration policies.Friday’s ruling focused on former President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s expansion of a legal mechanism for immigration called humanitarian parole, in which migrants from countries facing instability are allowed to enter the United States and quickly secure work authorization, provided they have a private sponsor to take responsibility for them.Earlier this month, the justices allowed the Trump administration to remove deportation protections from nearly 350,000 Venezuelan immigrants who had been allowed to remain in the United States under a program known as Temporary Protected Status.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme Court Curbs Scope of Environmental Reviews

      by

      The question for the justices was whether an agency had complied with a federal law by issuing a 3,600-page report on the impact of a proposed railway in Utah.The Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Thursday that a federal agency had done enough to consider the environmental impact of a proposed 88-mile railway in Utah. The ruling limits the scope of environmental reviews required by federal law in all sorts of settings.The proposed railway would connect oil fields in the Uinta Basin in northeast Utah to a national rail network that runs next to the Colorado River and then to refineries on the Gulf Coast.“An agency may weigh environmental consequences as the agency reasonably sees fit,” Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote for five justices. The court’s three liberal members agreed with the decision’s bottom line but on narrower grounds. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch was recused.The Surface Transportation Board, a federal agency that regulates rail transportation, approved the Utah project in 2021 after conducting a review that yielded a 3,600-page report. Environmental groups and a Colorado county sued, saying the report had not taken account of some ways in which the railway could do harm to the environment.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled for the challengers.The environmental impact statements required by a 1970 federal law, the National Environmental Policy Act, can be quite elaborate. Paul D. Clement, a lawyer representing seven Utah counties that support the project, told the justices when the case was argued in December that the law was “the single most litigated environmental statute.”He added that the board had acted responsibly.“It consulted with dozens of agencies, considered every proximate effect and ordered 91 mitigation measures,” he said, referring to measures intended to, among other things, dampen noise pollution and protect wildlife. “Eighty-eight miles of track should not require more than 3,600 pages of environmental analysis.”William M. Jay, a lawyer for the challengers, said at the argument that the report did not consider all the reasonably foreseeable results of the project, like oil spills and sparks that can cause wildfires, as required by the federal law.The case, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colo., No. 23-975, was argued before an eight-member court after Justice Gorsuch recused himself, apparently over concerns that his ties to Philip F. Anschutz gave rise to a conflict of interest. Neither Mr. Anschutz, a billionaire and Republican donor, nor his companies are parties to the case, and the letter announcing Justice Gorsuch’s recusal gave no reasons.But the proposed railway could benefit companies in which Mr. Anschutz has an interest. Justice Gorsuch represented Mr. Anschutz and his companies as a lawyer, benefited from his support when he was being considered for a seat on an appeals court and once served as a keynote speaker at an annual party at his ranch. More

    • 138 Shares157 Views

      in Elections

      Why Is This Supreme Court Handing Trump More and More Power?

      by

      Since taking his second oath of office, President Trump has been on a firing spree. In violation of numerous laws or longstanding presidential practice (or both), he has ordered the removal of many high-level officials who normally retain their positions regardless of who is in the Oval Office.Some of these high-level officials have successfully challenged their removal in the lower courts. But on Thursday, in a case involving members of the National Labor Relations and Merit Systems Protection Boards, the Supreme Court quietly blessed some or all of these firings. In doing so, the court effectively allowed the president to neutralize some of the last remaining sites of independent expertise and authority inside the executive branch.The court sought to cast its intervention as temporary, procedural and grounded in considerations of stability, with the unsigned order noting concerns about the “disruptive effect of the repeated removal and reinstatement of officers during the pendency of this litigation.”In truth, the decision was radical. Whatever one thinks about the underlying question of presidential authority, the court should not have disposed of the case this way. It effectively overruled an important and nearly century-old precedent central to the structure of the federal government without full briefing or argument. And it did so in a thinly reasoned, unsigned, two-page order handing the president underspecified but considerable new authority.Over the last four months, the legal world — and the country — has been plunged into chaos, and the Supreme Court bears a heavy dose of responsibility. Many of it decisions involving the presidency — including last year’s on presidential immunity — have enabled the president to declare himself above the law. The court’s latest order both enables the consolidation of additional power in the presidency and risks assimilating a “move fast and break things” ethos into constitutional law.No modern president has ever come close to the large-scale personnel purges that we have seen under Mr. Trump, and for good reason: Many of the officials in question are protected by law from being fired at will by the president. Mr. Trump maintains that laws limiting the president’s ability to fire high-level officials are unconstitutional. In making that argument, he is drawing on a series of recent Supreme Court opinions emphasizing the importance of presidential control over subordinate officials and invalidating removal limitations at agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares168 Views

      in Elections

      Federal Courts Buck Trump Deportation Schemes, Focusing on Due Process Rights

      by

      The Trump administration’s aggressive push to deport migrants has run up against resistance from the judiciary.If there has been a common theme in the federal courts’ response to the fallout from President Trump’s aggressive deportation policies, it is that the White House cannot rush headlong into expelling people by sidestepping the fundamental principle of due process.In case after case, a legal bottom line is emerging: Immigrants should at least be given the opportunity to challenge their deportations, especially as Trump officials have claimed novel and extraordinary powers to remove them.The latest and clearest expression of that view came on Friday evening, when the Supreme Court chided the Trump administration for seeking to provide only a day’s warning to a group of Venezuelan immigrants in Texas it had been trying to deport under the expansive powers of an 18th-century wartime law.“Notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal,” the justices wrote, “surely does not pass muster.”While many questions remain to be answered about Mr. Trump’s deportation plans, many legal scholars have hailed courts’ support of due process. At the same time, they have also expressed concern that such support was needed in the first place.“It’s great that courts are standing up for one of the most basic principles that underlie our constitutional order — that ‘persons’ (not ‘citizens’) are entitled to due process before being deprived of life, liberty, or property,” Michael Klarman, a professor at Harvard Law School, wrote in an email. “It would be even better if the administration would simply cease violating such principles.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      The Major Supreme Court Decisions in 2025

      by

      <!–> [–><!–> –><!–> [–> <!–> –><!–> [–><!–> –><!–> [–><!–> –><!–> [–><!–> –><!–> [!–> <!–> –><!–> –>Police Use of Excessive Force<!–> –><!–> [!–> Barnes v. Felix <!–> –> <!–> –> <!–> –> <!–> –><!–> [!–> 9-0 ruling on May 15 <!–> –> <!–> –><!–> [!–> <!–> Liberal bloc Sotomayor Jackson Kagan Conservative bloc Roberts Kavanaugh Barrett […] More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Several Supreme Court Justices Have Been Critical of Nationwide Injunctions

      by

      Across the ideological spectrum, justices have been troubled by rulings that touch everyone affected by a challenged law, regulation or executive action.Supreme Court justices across the ideological spectrum have said they are troubled by at least some nationwide injunctions, and several have long called for the court to address their proper scope.“It just can’t be right,” Justice Elena Kagan said in remarks in 2022 at Northwestern University’s law school, “that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process.”It is one thing for federal trial judges to resolve the dispute before them in rulings that are binding on the parties to the case, several justices have said. It is another to issue nationwide injunctions — sometimes called “universal” injunctions — that apply to everyone affected by the challenged law, regulation or executive action.In 2018, in a concurring opinion in a decision upholding President Trump’s ban on travel from several predominantly Muslim countries, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that “universal injunctions are legally and historically dubious.” He added that “if federal courts continue to issue them, this court is duty bound to adjudicate their authority to do so.”In 2020, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, joined by Justice Thomas, urged his colleagues to give lower courts guidance on when such injunctions were appropriate.“The routine issuance of universal injunctions is patently unworkable,” Justice Gorsuch wrote, “sowing chaos for litigants, the government, courts and all those affected by these conflicting decisions.”In 2023, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh issued a statement joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett when the court refused to revive a Florida law barring children from drag performances.“The question of whether a district court, after holding that a law violates the Constitution, may nonetheless enjoin the government from enforcing that law against nonparties to the litigation is an important question that could warrant our review in the future,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote.Justices Kagan, Thomas and Gorsuch all said that the availability of nationwide injunctions can spur forum shopping, the practice of filing lawsuits in friendly jurisdictions, as it takes only one judge to block a program even if several others reject similar challenges.“In the Trump years,” Justice Kagan said in 2022, “people used to go to the Northern District of California, and in the Biden years, they go to Texas.”Challengers in the birthright citizenship cases said that some issues, like school segregation and racial gerrymandering, required universal relief rather than case-by-case litigation. Birthright citizenship, they wrote, is also such an issue.“The universal injunction in this case preserves the uniformity of United States citizenship, an area in which nationwide consistency is vitally important,” lawyers for the challenger wrote. “Whether a child is a citizen of our nation should not depend on the state where she is born.”A nationwide injunction blocking Mr. Trump’s order, they wrote, “serves the public interest by preventing chaos and confusion.” More