Trump's winning at the Supreme Court. Justice Jackson warns about 'troubling message'
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump is on a winning streak of getting quick assistance from the Supreme Court after lower courts have put the brakes on his policies.
That's prompted one of the three liberal justices to write that the court is sending a 'troubling message" that it's departing from basic legal standards for the administration.
'It is particularly startling to think that grants of relief in these circumstances might be (unintentionally) conveying not only preferential treatment for the Government but also a willingness to undercut both our lower court colleagues' well-reasoned interim judgments and the well-established constraints of law that they are in the process of enforcing,' Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote.
Jackson was dissenting from the conservative majority's decision to give Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency complete access to the data of millions of Americans kept by the U.S. Social Security Administration.
Once again, she wrote in a dissent joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, "this Court dons its emergency responder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them."
A district judge had blocked DOGE's access to 'personally identifiable information' while assessing if that access is legal.
Jackson said a majority of the court didn't require the administration to show it would be 'irreparably harmed' by not getting immediate access, one of the legal standards for intervention.
"It says, in essence, that although other stay applicants must point to more than the annoyance of compliance with lower court orders they don't like," she wrote, "the Government can approach the courtroom bar with nothing more than that and obtain relief from this Court nevertheless."
A clock, a mural, a petition: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's chambers tell her story
In a brief and unsigned decision, the majority said it weighed the 'irreparable harm' factor along with the other required considerations of what's in the public interest and whether the courts are likely to ultimately decide that DOGE can get at the data.
But the majority did not explain how they did so.
Jackson raised a similar complaint when the court on May 30 said the administration can revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans living in the United States.
Jackson wrote that the court "plainly botched" its assessment of whether the government or the approximately 530,000 migrants would suffer the greater harm if their legal status ends while the administration's mass termination of that status is being litigated.
Jackson said the majority undervalued "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 majority did not offer an explanation for its decision.
In addition to those interventions, the Supreme Court recently blocked a judge's order requiring DOGE to disclose information about its operations, declined to reinstate independent agency board members fired by Trump, allowed Trump to strip legal protections from 350,000 Venezuelans and said the president can enforce his ban on transgender people serving in the military.
Jackson disagreed with all of those decisions.
The court's two other liberal justices – Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – disagreed with most of them.
More: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson can throw a punch. Literally.
The court did hand Trump a setback in May when it barred the administration from quickly resuming deportations of Venezuelans under a 1798 wartime law.
Two of the court's six conservative justices – Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito – dissented.
Decisions are expected in the coming weeks on other Trump emergency requests, including whether the president can dismantle the Education Department and can enforce his changes to birthright citizenship.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Justice Jackson warns Supreme Court is sending a 'troubling message'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Final day of SCOTUS decisions brings wave of history-making rulings
The Supreme Court had a banner day on Friday, the last decision day of the high court's term, involving the justices reining in judicial power and serving up a victory for parents in the ongoing culture wars. The high court's more controversial decisions were split along ideological lines. Liberal justices sometimes dissented with bitter rebukes, while the Trump administration celebrated what it viewed as landmark wins. In the most high-profile case of the day, the Supreme Court ended the practice of judges issuing sweeping injunctions that cover the whole country and not just parties involved in a case. The injunctions, often known as "nationwide injunctions," have been a source of frustration for President Donald Trump as judges side with plaintiffs and block key parts of the president's agenda. The case arose from several judges issuing injunctions that blocked Trump from carrying out his birthright citizenship plan. Rather than ask the Supreme Court to weigh in on the merits of the plan, which has been uniformly rejected in courts, Trump asked the high court to put a stop to the injunction practice. The Supreme Court's 6-3 decision left open the possibility that judges and plaintiffs could use other avenues, such as class action lawsuits, to seek broad relief now that the high court has curtailed nationwide injunctions. The Supreme Court decided 6-3 in Mahmoud v. Taylor that parents can opt their children out of a Maryland public school system's lessons when they contain themes about homosexuality and transgenderism if they feel the content conflicts with their religious beliefs. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, said the government "burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses 'a very real threat of undermining' the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill." The Trump administration celebrated the ruling as a victory for "parental rights," while Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in a scathing dissent that the high court's decision would open floodgates for students to opt out of a wider range of lessons. The Supreme Court allowed Texas to require age verification for users of pornographic websites, dealing a win to those aiming to block children from accessing explicit material online. A trade association for the porn industry brought the lawsuit, alleging the age requirement meant the state was unconstitutionally regulating free speech on the internet. "This is a major victory for children, parents, and the ability of states to protect minors from the damaging effects of online pornography," Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement. "Companies have no right to expose children to pornography and must institute reasonable age verification measures." The Supreme Court punted its case about Louisiana's congressional maps, indicating it needed a few more questions answered during oral arguments in the fall. The delay means that Louisiana's map of voting districts, including majority-Black districts, would not see any changes until the 2028 election cycle or later. The Supreme Court is now set to wind down in anticipation of its summer recess, though it is still expected to hand down some straggling decisions before its next term begins in October.
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
The Tribune's Quotes of the Week quiz for June 28
Well, that's just about a wrap on June. But before you set your sights on the upcoming holiday weekend, let's catch up on what happened this week. On Saturday, President Donald Trump made the controversial decision to bomb three key nuclear sites in Iran. Days later, Israel and Iran, who were engaged in an armed conflict since June 13, agreed upon a ceasefire, and Trump said U.S. and Iranian officials will talk next week. As fears of the conflict evolving into a broader war appeared to subside, the stock market made significant gains, closing out the week at all-time highs. In other news from around the globe, U.S. officials attended the NATO summit this week where member nations agreed to increase their defense spending, democratic socialist and state lawmaker Zohran Mamdami declared victory over former Gov. Andrew Cuomo in New York City's Democratic mayoral primary race and the Supreme Court issued a slew of opinions, covering everything from immigration and education to pornography and injunction powers. Locally, Gov. JB Pritzker officially announced his bid for reelection this week, amid speculation that he may run for president in 2028. Universal unveiled its plans for a horror-themed attraction in Chicago, a 'year-round immersive horror experience' that is slated to open in 2027. And the Chicago Police Department honored one of their own this week. Officers, loved ones and city leaders gathered for the funeral of Krystal Rivera, the Chicago police officer mistakenly shot and killed by her partner earlier this month. On Thursday, new Chicago Public Schools Interim CEO Macquline King addressed her first school board meeting, citing the district's $730 million deficit as her top priority. By Friday, CPS laid off 161 employees and eliminated another 209 open positions in a cost-cutting move to plug that shortfall. The Oklahoma City Thunder beat the Indiana Pacers in Game 7 of the finals Sunday night to win the NBA championship. Three days later, the NBA draft opened. Cooper Flagg was picked first overall and the Bulls drafted two new players: Noa Essengue, a 6-foot-10 French teenager, and Australian forward Lachlan Olbrich. Plus, the first round of the NHL draft took place Friday, with the Chicago Blackhawks selecting the top-ranked international player with the No. 3 pick. Meanwhile, in the world of baseball, both of Chicago's MLB teams reached the halfway point of their seasons — though the Cubs boast the significantly better record of the two. Also this week, a White Sox fan was ejected from Rate Field and banned from all major-league ballparks after heckling Arizona Diamondbacks second baseman Ketel Marte. Still figuring out your weekend plans? Chicago's 54th annual Pride Parade kicks off at 11 a.m. Sunday in the Lakeview neighborhood. Or if you're staying in, catch up on 'The Bear' — Season 4 of the beloved Chicago-based TV show dropped Wednesday. With the Fourth of July holiday next weekend, the quotes team will be taking a week off. But don't fear! We'll be back July 12 with your weekly news roundup and quotes quiz. Until then, take care and stay cool out there, Chicago! Here's the Tribune's Quotes of the Week quiz for June 22 to 28. Missed last week? You can find it here or check out our past editions of Quotes of the Week.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
The Memo: SCOTUS clears the way for Trump – and for his successors
The Supreme Court's decision in a birthright citizenship case, handed down on Friday, has ramifications way beyond President Trump. The big, long-term impact is the granting of greater leeway to future presidents as well as to the current one. The power of the courts to curb actions emanating from the Oval Office has been significantly diluted. Whether that is a good or bad thing is in the eye of the beholder — refracted through the lens of party loyalties. For now, the decision is being celebrated by Republicans and lamented by Democrats. Those roles are nearly sure to reverse the next time a Democratic president moves into the White House. The high court did not, in fact, weigh in on the constitutionality of Trump's executive order to shift the definition of birthright citizenship. Trump wants to change the automatic assumption that people born in the United States are automatically American citizens, regardless of the immigration status of their parents. That push is framed by immigration hawks as a battle to thwart the concept of 'anchor babies' – infants born in the United States, allegedly in order to put their unauthorized-migrant parents effectively outside the reach of deportation efforts. But liberals argue the Trump effort is unconstitutional on its face, given the Fourteenth Amendment's apparently clear statement that, 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.' Liberals also assert that the clause about 'jurisdiction' is largely beside the point where immigration is concerned, since unauthorized migrants are still subject to the laws of the United States while they reside within its borders. In any event, lower courts have found against the Trump administration on the question, the administration has appealed and it is likely that the specific question will end up before the justices yet again. But for now, the court by a 6-3 majority has circumscribed the ability of district courts to block a law or presidential action. The ruling was, in the end, akin to a party line vote, the six conservative justices – three of whom were nominated by Trump during his first term – outvoting the three liberals. Lower courts will no longer be able to issue a 'universal injunction' – that is, an injunction that bars enforcement of a presidential order nationwide. Instead, decisions in those district courts will only be binding upon the parties involved in each case. 'A universal injunction can be justified only as an exercise of equitable authority, yet Congress has granted federal courts no such power,' Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote, delivering the majority opinion. Barrett also warned about those – including her colleague Justice Ketanj Brown Jackson – who she said would try to thwart an 'imperial presidency' by empowering an imperial judiciary instead. The new reality will be beneficial to the current president and his successors. But it could also be messy, given that it opens a up a vista in which presidential edicts are lawful in one set of states – presumably those whose ideological coloring is the same as that of the incumbent in the Oval Office – and unlawful in the rest, at least until the Supreme Court settles the matter. Trump, who made a hastily convened appearance in the White House briefing room after the ruling was announced, contended that the court had delivered 'a monumental victory for the constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law.' It was, to be sure, a major win at the nexus of politics and jurisprudence for Trump and his allies. The president and key aides like Stephen Miller have repeatedly assailed judges who ruled against them as exceeding their legitimate powers and even engaging in a 'judicial coup.' Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote the main dissenting opinion, objected in strenuous terms, saying that her minority position was spurred by her desire to 'not be complicit in so grave an attack on our system of law.' 'No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates,' Sotomayor wrote. 'Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship.' Sotomayor also issued a bleak warning about the way in which such an expansive view of executive power could be used in the future to hollow out the rights that had been previously enjoyed – just as the doctrine of birthright citizenship had been seen as settled law until relatively recently. The liberal justice, nominated to the high court by President Obama, was also far more willing than her conservative colleagues to engage with the merits of the arguments over birthright citizenship. She alleged that the focus on universal injunctions amounted merely to the Trump administration playing a 'different game' because it had no realistic chance of making its more limited interpretation of birthright citizenship work. On the latter point, she wrote, Trump had 'an impossible task in light of the Constitution's text, history, this Court's precedents, federal law, and Executive Branch practice.' On the bigger question of how the legal processes will now work, some worries were voiced even by one of the conservative judges who concurred in the ruling, Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Referring to the period where different court orders could hold sway in different parts of the nation, Kavanaugh argued that 'there often (perhaps not always, but often) should be a nationally uniform answer on whether a major new federal statute, rule, or executive order can be enforced throughout the United States during the several-year interim period until its legality is finally decided on the merits.' He added: 'It is not especially workable or sustainable or desirable to have a patchwork scheme, potentially for several years, in which a major new federal statute or executive action of that kind applies to some people or organizations in certain States or regions, but not to others.' Such concerns are the thorniest questions to emerge from Friday's decision. The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage.
