Gorsuch scolds Supreme Court litigator in rare, heated exchange
The tense exchange took place during oral arguments in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, a case centered on whether school districts can be held liable for discriminating against students with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Gorsuch scolded Williams & Connolly lawyer Lisa Blatt, an experienced Supreme Court litigator representing the Minnesota public schools, for accusing the plaintiffs of "lying" in their assertions before the high court.
Plaintiffs in the case are representing the parents of a girl with severe epilepsy, who sued the public school for refusing to provide at-home school during the morning, an accommodation she would receive in other districts in the state.
100 Days Of Injunctions, Trials And 'Teflon Don': Trump Second Term Meets Its Biggest Tests In Court
The exchange between Gorsuch and Blatt took place after she accused them of lying about the public school's stance.
Read On The Fox News App
Counsel "should be more careful with their words," Gorsuch told Blatt in a warning.
"OK well, they should be more careful in mischaracterizing a position by an experienced advocate of the Supreme Court, with all due respect," Blatt responded.
Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court To Review El Salvador Deportation Flight Case
Later, he referenced the lying accusation again. "Ms. Blatt," Gorsuch told her, "I confess I'm still troubled by your suggestion that your friends on the other side have lied."
"OK," she fired back. "Let's pull it up. In oral arguments…"
Gorsuch cut in, telling her, "I think we're going to have to, here. And I'd ask you to reconsider that phrase."
"You can accuse people of being incorrect, but lying–" Gorsuch said, before Blatt attempted to interject.
"Ms. Blatt, if I might finish," Gorsuch said, before continuing: "But lying is another matter."
He then started to read through page one of their brief, before she interrupted again.
"I'm not finished," Gorsuch told her, raising his voice.
"Withdraw your accusation, Ms. Blatt," he then told her of the lying accusation.
"Fine, I withdraw," she shot back.
Plaintiffs said on rebuttal only that they would not dignify the name-calling.
The exchange sparked some buzz online, including from an experienced appeals court litigator, Raffi Melkonian, who noted of the exchange on social media, "I've never heard Justice Gorsuch so angry."Original article source: Gorsuch scolds Supreme Court litigator in rare, heated exchange
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
9 minutes ago
- The Hill
Colombian ex-President Álvaro Uribe is sentenced to 12 years house arrest for bribery
BOGOTA, Colombia (AP) — Former Colombian President Álvaro Uribe was sentenced Friday to 12 years of house arrest for witness tampering and bribery in a historic case that gripped the South American nation and tarnished the conservative strongman's legacy. The sentence, which Uribe said will be appealed, followed a nearly six-month trial in which prosecutors presented evidence that he attempted to influence witnesses who accused the law-and-order leader of having links to a paramilitary group in the 1990s. 'Politics prevailed over the law in sentencing,' Uribe said after Friday's hearing. Uribe, 73, has denied any wrongdoing. He faced up to 12 years in prison after being convicted Monday. His attorney had asked the court to allow Uribe to remain free while he appeals the verdict. Judge Sandra Heredia on Friday said she did not grant the defense's request because it would be 'easy' for the former president to leave the country to 'evade the imposed sanction.' Heredia also banned Uribe from holding public office for eight years and fined him about $776,000. Ahead of Friday's sentencing, Uribe posted on X that he was preparing arguments to support his appeal. He added that one must 'think much more about the solution than the problem' during personal crises. The appeals court will have until early October to issue a ruling, which either party could then challenge before Colombia's Supreme Court. The former president governed from 2002 to 2010 with strong support from the United States. He is a polarizing figure in Colombia, where many credit him for saving the country from becoming a failed state, while others associate him with human rights violations and the rise of paramilitary groups in the 1990s. Heredia on Monday said she had seen enough evidence to determine that Uribe conspired with a lawyer to coax three former paramilitary group members, who were in prison, into changing testimony they had provided to Ivan Cepeda, a leftist senator who had launched an investigation into Uribe's alleged ties to a paramilitary group. Uribe in 2012 filed a libel suit against Cepeda in the Supreme Court. But in a twist, the high court in 2018 dismissed the accusations against Cepeda and began investigating Uribe. Martha Peñuela Rosales, a supporter of Uribe's party in the capital, Bogota, said she wept and prayed after hearing of the sentence. 'It's an unjust sentence. He deserves to be free,' she said. Meanwhile, Sergio Andrés Parra, who protested against Uribe outside the courthouse, said the 12-year sentence 'is enough' and, even if the former president appeals, 'history has already condemned him.' During Uribe's presidency, Colombia's military attained some of its biggest battlefield victories against Latin America's oldest leftist insurgency, pushing the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia into remote pockets and forcing the group's leadership into peace talks that led to the disarmament of more than 13,000 fighters in 2016.
NBC News
10 minutes ago
- NBC News
Supreme Court raises the stakes in a Louisiana redistricting case
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday expanded the scope of a Louisiana congressional redistricting dispute that has been pending for months by ordering new briefing on a legal question that could further weaken the landmark Voting Rights Act. The court issued an order asking the lawyers to address whether, in seeking to comply with the 1965 law that protects minority voting rights, Louisiana violated the Constitution's 14th and 15th Amendments enacted after the Civil War to ensure Black people were treated equally under the law. If the court rules that the state did violate the Constitution, it would mean states cannot cite the need to comply with the Voting Rights Act if they use race as a consideration during the map-drawing process, as they currently can. Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the UCLA School of Law. wrote on his Election Law Blog that the order "appears to put the constitutionality of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act into question." That provision bars voting practices or rules that discriminate against minority groups. The Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority is often receptive to arguments that the Constitution is 'colorblind,' meaning no consideration of race can ever be lawful even if it is aimed at remedying past discrimination. In 2013, the court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act in a case from Alabama and further weakened it in a 2021 case from Arizona. The justices heard arguments in the Louisiana case on more technical, less contentious questions in March and was originally expected to issue a ruling by the end of June. Even then, the constitutional issue loomed large. The new order did not indicate whether the court will hear another round of arguments before it issues a ruling in the case. The Louisiana map in question, which is currently in effect, includes two majority Black districts for the first time in years. The complicated case arose from litigation over an earlier map drawn by the state legislature after the 2020 census that included just one Black majority district out of the state's six districts. About a third of the state's population is Black. Civil rights groups, including the Legal Defense Fund, won a legal challenge, arguing that the Voting Rights Act required two majority Black districts. But after the new map was drawn, a group of self-identified 'non-African American' voters led by Phillip Callais and 11 other plaintiffs filed another lawsuit, saying the latest map violated the 14th Amendment. As recently as 2023, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the Voting Rights Act in a congressional redistricting case arising from Alabama. But conservatives raised questions about whether key elements of the law should ultimately be struck down.
CNN
10 minutes ago
- CNN
Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship faces skepticism from another appeals court
Donald Trump Supreme CourtFacebookTweetLink Follow A federal appeals court appeared ready on Friday to become the second such court in the country to rule that President Donald Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship is unlawful. A three-judge panel of the Boston-based First US Circuit Court of Appeals spent two hours looking skeptically at Trump's Day One order in a series of cases in which lower courts said the policy violated the Constitution, decades-old Supreme Court precedent and federal law. 'We have an opinion of the Supreme Court that we aren't free to disregard,' Chief Judge David Barron said at one point, referring to an 1898 Supreme Court case known as United States v. Wong Kim Ark that affirmed the idea that most people born on American soil are entitled to citizenship. Other members of the panel similarly said they were required to stick with the holding in that case, including Judge Julie Rikelman, who said the Trump administration was essentially asking the court to adopt the dissenting opinion issued in the 19th century case. 'We have to apply the majority decision, not the dissenting opinion,' she told DOJ attorney Eric McArthur. A ruling against the administration would represent the second time this summer that an appeals court, after reviewing the merits of Trump's order, concluded that it was unlawful. Last month, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals sided against Trump in a separate case. The rulings could ultimately be appealed up to the Supreme Court. The First Circuit judges did not indicate on Friday when they would issue a decision. Signed by Trump on January 20, the executive order, titled 'PROTECTING THE MEANING AND VALUE OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP,' said that the federal government will not 'issue documents recognizing United States citizenship' to any children born on American soil to parents who were in the country unlawfully, or were in the US lawfully, but temporarily. In the set of cases before the Boston-based appeals court, three lower courts issued separate preliminary injunctions earlier this year that prevented Trump from implementing any part of his policy. (Other lower-court decisions similarly jammed up the policy). Among those rulings was a nationwide injunction, which barred Trump from enforcing his order anywhere in the country. The panel of judges had previously declined to lift those rulings while the cases unfolded and the case was appealed up to the Supreme Court on an emergency basis. The high court – without reviewing the merits of Trump's order – made it more difficult for litigants to win nationwide orders blocking executive branch policies. While the First Circuit judges – all of whom were appointed by Democratic presidents – asked a few questions on Friday that were somewhat critical of technical arguments being pushed by some of the challengers in the cases, they showed no support for Trump's attempt to rewrite how birthright citizenship works in the US. 'The rule is that everybody who is born here is a citizen or subject,' Rikelman said at one point.
