Latest news with #DredScott
Atlantic
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Atlantic
The Inscrutable Supreme Court
In the American system, courts don't make law; they interpret it. The act of interpreting the law requires, well, interpretation—not mere pronouncement, but an explanation for that pronouncement, backed up by law, evidence, and logic. That's why the Supreme Court's failure to offer any sort of reasoning to justify its order in Department of Homeland Security v. D. V. D is a threat to the rule of law, a reward for defiance, and a horrific example of a judicial process off the rails. The order is, unfortunately, only one of a recent spate of unexplained orders by this Court. The case involved the efforts by DHS (where I worked from 2005 to 2009 as a George W. Bush appointee) to deport aliens who are allegedly illegally present in the United States to third countries (that is, to countries other than the one from which they came) without affording them notice or due process. At issue was Donald Trump's efforts to send several individuals to South Sudan, where, they said, they would be subject to torture. Trump's process denied them the opportunity to prove that they had a 'credible fear' of harm and to argue that sending them there violates the Convention Against Torture (to which the United States is a signatory). A district court in Massachusetts had provided a preliminary-injunction order that prohibited sending the individuals to South Sudan without a hearing, leaving them stuck in limbo en route in Djibouti. The Supreme Court order lifted that injunction. Paul Rosenzweig: American corruption The order is so problematic that two commentators have dubbed it ' the worst Supreme Court decision of Trump's second term.' But even that is, in a way, too generous. Calling the order a 'decision' suggests that the Court offered reasons for its judgment. In D. V. D., in what could be, quite literally, a matter of life or death, the Court simply ordered the injunction lifted. This disregard for explanation is destructive to the idea that law matters. Reason and persuasion are a court's stock in trade; as Aristotle said, 'the law is reason.' Reason is all that stands between a court's claim that it is doing 'law' and the challenge that it is doing 'politics.' At least one of the conservative justices, Amy Coney Barrett, has said that she understands the importance of justification. Three years ago, she gave a speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation & Institute, in which she movingly spoke about what she viewed as the Court's defining characteristic —the commitment to explaining its decisions in public. To those who criticized the Court (this was in the immediate aftermath of the Dobbs abortion decision) for imposing a political-policy position, she had a simple response: 'Read the opinion.' Even the most odious of the Court's decisions, such as the fugitive-slave case, Dred Scott, and the Japanese-internment case, Korematsu, offered reasons for their analysis—reasons that could be read and understood then and today, however unconvincing and repulsive they were. But at least one could be repulsed and unconvinced by them! Even poor reasoning in controversial decisions, such as in the transgender-health-care decision this term, shows how the Court reached its decision and allows for the possibility of a counterargument. One can't argue with a void. The complete absence of any attempt to explain (especially in controversial 6–3 cases such as D. V. D.) turns the Court into a mere vote-tabulation machine, accumulating political preferences by a 'yes' or 'no' accounting that is functionally indistinguishable from how Congress passes legislation. If Barrett wants us to read the opinion, she has to write it first. And perhaps in the act of writing, the Court might have recognized the error of its ways. In the D. V. D. case, a Massachusetts district judge had issued first a temporary restraining order (TRO) and then a preliminary injunction requiring immigration officials to tell immigrants where they were going to be deported to and allow them to object if they feared they would face torture at their intended destination. Whatever one may think of that requirement—and I think it is an eminently reasonable one—the Trump administration should follow court orders while a case is pending. If it disagrees with such a requirement—as it did—it should appeal the ruling, not ignore it. The administration did appeal the ruling; it did not, however, obey it in the meantime. This is a problem. To buttress the general requirement that rulings should be obeyed, the law has an overarching principle that courts should grant relief only to those who come before it with ' clean hands.' There should be no reward for bad behavior. No longer. In D. V. D., the Trump administration came before the Court with its hands as dirty as possible. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor recounted in her dissent, 'In violation of an unambiguous TRO, the Government flew four noncitizens to Guantanamo Bay, and from there deported them to El Salvador. Then, in violation of the very preliminary injunction from which it now seeks relief, the Government removed six class members to South Sudan with less than 16 hours' notice and no opportunity to be heard.' But far from punishing this executive defiance, the Court rewarded it, relieving the Trump administration of its obligations. As Sotomayor put it, 'This is not the first time the Court closes its eyes to noncompliance, nor, I fear, will it be the last. Yet each time this Court rewards noncompliance with discretionary relief, it further erodes respect for courts and for the rule of law.' All of this would likely not have been acceptable even if the majority had chosen to tell the nation why it did what it did. But as it is, Americans can infer only that the majority simply wanted what it wanted, and couldn't be bothered to explain its decision to the public, to the district-court judges below (who can only assume that the Court will no longer 'have their back' in the future), and to the individuals who have been deported to war-torn South Sudan, a country to which they have no apparent connection. Worse yet, by giving the Trump administration what it wanted, even though it openly defied the district court, the Court seems to be inviting yet more defiance of the sort. Certainly, that is how the administration will read the decision, especially in the absence of any limiting explanation. If it had chosen to write, the majority of the Court might also have explained how it analysed the balance of equities in its decision. One factor in injunctive relief is that a court is required to determine who would be harmed more in the interim and grant relief to try to prevent that greater injury. It would have been nice for the Court to have offered even a word or two about why it saw the possibility of being sent without notice to South Sudan as a less harmful result than the government being subject to restraint while a case is pending. One would love to 'read the opinion' about why the Court thinks thus. Conor Friedersdorf: Donald Trump's Cruel and Unusual Innovations The reasoning is anyone's guess, and that is at least part of why the district-court judge initially concluded that the Supreme Court's order didn't apply to a portion of the case pending before him. The Court had only itself to blame for his confusion and soon issued a clarification of its order, again without a word of substantive justification. As Sotomayor wrote in response to the Court's peremptory, cryptic order: 'The Court's continued refusal to justify its extraordinary decisions in this case, even as it faults lower courts for failing properly to divine their import, is indefensible.' Finally, on the merits, the substantive result of this decision portends possible death for those who have now been sent to South Sudan and immigration chaos for the broader system, again without any explanation of why this result is mandated by law. In two earlier unexplained decisions, the Court allowed the Trump administration to withdraw 'temporary protected status' and 'humanitarian parole' status from individuals who had received those designations during the Biden administration. As the names imply, immigrants with those designations are allowed to stay in the country. Once rescinded (as the Court now says Trump may do), the aliens in question are required to leave the United States, and if they do not do so voluntarily, they may be deported. Taken together, these decisions mean that more than 500,000 immigrants who are lawfully present in the United States are now eligible for wholesale expulsion to parts unknown. Under the Court's orders, Trump could, in theory, send 100,000 Venezuelans to Bhutan if the Bhutanese would agree to take them, all without a word of explanation. This is not law and reason. Rather, it is power, plain and simple. The Court's actions look and feel like nothing so much as the authoritarian rule of six Platonic Guardians, who, without a hint of humility, are so convinced of their own rectitude that they offer their subjects not even the courtesy of justification.
LeMonde
27-06-2025
- Politics
- LeMonde
'Trump's attack on birthright citizenship serves to expand his authority by jeopardizing the status of all Americans'
"Birthright. That's a big one," President Donald Trump mused out loud as he signed an executive order purporting to end birthright citizenship in America. On that, at least, all Americans can agree. Although attacks on birthright citizenship are as old as the nation, President Trump's reasons for doing so break new ground. In the past, the primary goal was to exclude and deport disfavored immigrants. Today, the Trump administration is weaponizing citizenship not only to deport the unwanted, but also to control all those who remain. In 2025, the United States is one of only 33 countries that automatically grant citizenship to nearly every child born within its borders, almost all in the Western Hemisphere. European countries either never adopted birthright citizenship or abandoned it in recent decades. The Trump administration wants to add the US to that long list. But birthright citizenship is essential to American identity. In many ways, the story of birthright citizenship is the story of America. A fraught issue At its founding, the US was conflicted over citizenship – a fraught issue in a nation composed of indigenous tribes, European immigrants and their descendants, and the 20% of the population who were enslaved. In its infamous 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, the Supreme Court heldthat no Black person, slave or free, could ever be a citizen of the US. That decision helped to precipitate the Civil War. Slavery was abolished by that war's end, but the question of who qualified as an American remained. In 1868, the US repudiated Dred Scott and the caste system it created by ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. The first sentence of that amendment declares: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." The Fourteenth Amendment granted birthright citizenship to all, including the newly freed slaves and the children of immigrants. The only exceptions were a few discrete groups not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US due to their unique legal status, such as the children of diplomats and those born members of Native American tribes. Senator Jacob Howard, who proposed this language, claimed it "settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States."
New York Times
27-06-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
How the Birthright Citizenship and Nationwide Injunctions Case Began
In mid-May, the Supreme Court took the bench for a rare emergency oral argument, which had been tacked on to the end of the term. The case focused on whether a single federal judge had the power to freeze a federal policy for the entire country, a long-simmering debate. Despite the dry-sounding legal issue, the case involved something urgent: an executive order signed by President Trump on his first day back in office. In fewer than 800 words, and with a signature scrawled in thick Sharpie, the president declared an end to birthright citizenship, the principle that children born in the United States are citizens. Birthright citizenship is rooted in English common law. It was enshrined in the U.S. Constitution in 1868 in the 14th Amendment, which reads: 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.' In one of its most notorious cases, Dred Scott, the Supreme Court in 1857 denied citizenship to the descendants of slaves, helping prompt the Civil War. The 14th Amendment erased that finding and expanded citizenship to almost anyone born in the United States. In 1898, the justices again considered birthright citizenship in the case of Wong Kim Ark. Mr. Wong was born in San Francisco's Chinatown, the child of parents who were part of a wave of Chinese laborers who came to the United States in the mid-1800s. Officials argued that birthright citizenship did not apply to him because he and his parents were not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States when he was born. The Supreme Court disagreed. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
CBS News
20-06-2025
- General
- CBS News
Minnesotans celebrate Juneteenth through food, music and history lessons
Across Minnesota, communities came together to celebrate a day that's more than a holiday, but the heartbeat of freedom. Juneteenth, now recognized as a federal holiday, is more than a day off; it's an important reminder of freedom delayed but never denied. It marks the day in 1865 when enslaved African Americans in Texas learned they were free. In south Minneapolis, people gathered for food and music as children jumped Double Dutch. In north Minneapolis, there was a parade full of excitement. But at Historic Fort Snelling, people took a different approach. More than 400 people took a guided tour on the grounds where slavery once existed. Dred and Harriet Scott lived and labored there in the 1830s. A man whose fight for freedom was one of the most infamous Supreme Court decisions, where the courts denied Black people freedom. For Loretta Kennedy and her family, it was crucial to book the tour. "Everybody needs to know their name and who they were," Kennedy said. "If it wasn't for them, we wouldn't be here." It's a day filled with love and rooted in history and hope.
Yahoo
15-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
2025 Juneteenth events in the east metro
Juneteenth is a federal holiday Thursday marking the day when slaves in Texas were told about the Emancipation Proclamation, two years after it had been announced. Minnesota also recognizes Juneteenth as a state holiday. State, county and city offices are closed, as are federal offices and banks. The following events are among those taking place in the Twin Cities in commemoration of the holiday: Rondo 2025 Juneteenth Celebration: The Rondo Center of Diverse Expressions is hosting its Juneteenth observance from noon to 5 p.m. on Thursday, June 19, at the Rondo Commemorative Plaza, 820 Rondo Avenue in St. Paul. Programmed events include speeches from public officials and the announcement of the recipients of the Spirit of Rondo awards and take place from 2 to 3:30 p.m. The theme this year is 'The Journey of Four Families.' In partnership with In Black Ink, organizers will reveal new exhibit panels on the Rondo Commemorative Plaza that tell the history and genealogical stories of several Rondo families. For more information go to Juneteenth at the Fort: To celebrate Juneteenth Fort Snelling is hosting a series of tours — from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Thursday, June 19 — focusing on African American history at the fort from it's inception in 1819 through the 1880s. There will be stories of enslaved people brought to the fort, many of whom fought for their freedom in court, including Dred and Harriet Scott. The tour also will explore the history of the 25th Infantry, which was stationed at Fort Snelling in the 1880s, and their regimental band. The hour-long tours will be offered at 10:30 a.m., 11:30 a.m., 12:30 p.m., 1:30 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. Tours may fill quickly and are on a first come first served basis. The fort is located at 200 Tower Ave. in St. Paul. For more information go to ftsnelling@ Feeding Our Souls: The Essence of Juneteenth Joy with Dr. Jessica B. Harris: Culinary historian, author of several books including High on the Hog, winner of two NAACP Image Awards, a Peabody Award, and James Beard Foundation Lifetime Achievement award winner Dr. Jessica B. Harris will hold a conversation with Minnesota History Center CEO Kevin Lindsey on the topic of how food shapes our identities and understandings of cultural heritage. After the program, organized by the Minnesota Humanities Center, guests are invited to taste samples of several area chefs' signature dishes. The event is $25 and is from 5:15 to 8 p.m. Wednesday, June 18, at the Minnesota History Center, at 345 W. Kellogg Blvd. in St. Paul. For more information go to Juneteenth Brunch & Conversation with Sherrilyn Ifill: Sherrilyn Ifill, the Vernon Jordan Professor of Law of Civil Rights at Howard University School of Law and former President and director–counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., will take part in a conversation and brunch from 9:15 to 11 a.m. Thursday, June 19, at Quincy Hall, 1325 Quincy St N.E., Minneapolis. The event, organized by the Minnesota Humanities Center, is $100. For more information go to Juneteenth Family Day with Anika Foundation: The Minnesota Humanities Center is sponsoring the Anika Foundation Juneteenth Family Celebration! The event is free and will feature family-friendly fun, games, and community. The event is from noon to 6 p.m. Saturday, June 21, at the State Capitol in St. Paul. For more information go to Vadnais Heights Freedom Day Festival: The Vadnais Heights Community Action Network and the city of Vadnais Heights are hosting Vadnais Heights Freedom Day Festival from 5 to 8 p.m. on Saturday, June 21, at Kohler Meadows Park, at 365 County Road F East in Vadnais Heights. This year's event features live music, food, art, education, and family fun. Shemeka Bogan, of the Strong Roots Foundation, will be event emcee. Bogan is co-founder of the Northside Juneteenth Celebration, a nonprofit that has been lifting up Juneteenth on the Minneapolis Northside for the past six years. The event is free to attend, but meal tickets must be reserved by registering at Eventbrite at To keep the event free organizers have an online auction that will run through June 24, raising money for next year's celebration. For more information go to: Juneteenth Family Day Celebration: West St. Paul's Residents of Color Collective is hosting a Juneteenth celebration from 5 to 8 p.m. Thursday, June 19, at the Dodge Nature Center at the Main Property, Farm Entrance, 1701 Charlton Street, West St. Paul. The event will feature shopping from BIPOC-owned businesses, learning with Dodge naturalists, arts and crafts activities, live music and food available for purchase. For more information at go Honoring Resilience: Woodbury for Justice and Equality will be hosting a Juneteenth celebration, 'Honoring the Resilience,' from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. Saturday, June 14, at Ojibway Park in Woodbury. Those attending can enjoy food from local vendors, live music and dance, and games, crafts and educational opportunities for all ages. More information: Juneteenth Celebration at First Covenant Church: First Covenant Church is hosting a Juneteenth event from 4 to 7 p.m. Wednesday, June 18. The church is located at 1280 Arcade St. in St. Paul. There will be food, music, games, art, and community resources. After surviving collapse, fire and Dillinger escape, Dakota County swing bridge begins new chapter Germanic-American Institute's German Days will have a Swiss twist this weekend St. Paul street dance festival will feature local and out-of-state performers Lowertown Sounds kickoff postponed due to impending storms Maplewood: Goodrich Golf Course reopens with upgrades to grounds, environment
