Latest news with #JohnG.Roberts
Los Angeles Times
18-06-2025
- Health
- Los Angeles Times
Supreme Court upholds red-state laws that ban hormones for transgender teens
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that states may ban hormone treatments for transgender teens, rejecting the claim that such gender-based discrimination is unconstitutional. In a 6-3 decision, the justices said states are generally free to decide on proper standards of medical care, particularly when health experts are divided. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, writing for the court, said the state decides on medical regulations. 'We leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process,' he said. In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the law 'plainly discriminates on the basis of sex... By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent.' Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed. The ruling upholds laws in Tennessee and 23 other Republican-led states, all of them adopted in the past four years. Tennessee lawmakers said the number of minors being diagnosed with gender dysphoria had 'exploded' in recent years, leading to a 'surge in unproven and risky medical interventions for these underage patients.' California and other Democratic-led states do not prohibit doctors from prescribing puberty blockers or hormones for those under age 18 who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria. While the court's ruling in the Tennessee case should not directly affect California's law, the Trump administration seeks to prevent the use of federal funds to pay for gender affirming care. This could affect patients who rely on Medicaid and also restrict hospitals and other medical clinics from providing hormones and other medical treatments for minors. Wednesday's decision highlights the sharp turn in the past year on trans rights and 'gender affirming' care. Solicitor Gen. Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the Biden administration, had appealed to the Supreme Court in November, 2023, and urged the justices to strike down the red state laws. She spoke of a broad consensus in favor of gender affirming care. It was unconstitutional, she argued, for states to ban 'evidence-based treatments supported by the overwhelming consensus of the medical community.' But Republican lawmakers voiced doubt about the long-term effect of these hormone treatments for adolescents. Their skepticism was reinforced by the Cass Report from Britain, which concluded there were not long-term studies or reliable evidence in support of the treatments. In his first day in office, President Trump issued an executive order condemning 'gender ideology extremism.' He said his administration would 'recognize two sexes, male and female. These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality.' His administration later said its ban on gender affirming care for minors would extend to medical facilities receiving federal funds.
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court splits 4-4, blocking first religious charter school in Oklahoma
The Supreme Court dealt an unexpected blow Thursday to the conservative drive for religious charter schools, with the justices splitting 4-4 and unable to rule in a case from Oklahoma that had the effect of blocking a proposed new Catholic charter school. If upheld, it would have been the nation's first tax-funded, church-run charter school. In recent years, charter schools have proven popular with parents both in major cities and in rural areas, and their numbers would surely have grown if churches or religious groups were free to operate these schools. The Supreme Court has six conservatives, all of whom were raised as Catholics. And Chief Justice John G. Roberts has written opinions ruling it was unconstitutional discrimination to exclude religious schools from a state's program of vouchers or tuition subsides for children attending private schools. Religious-liberty advocates appealed to the Supreme Court last year arguing that it was also unconstitutional to exclude churches from sponsoring a state-funded charter school. But they fell one vote short of majority that could have changed schools nationwide. Read more: Supreme Court may allow church-run, publicly funded charter schools across the nation Justice Amy Coney Barrett had announced in advance she would not participate in the decision. A former Notre Dame law professor, she was a close friend of law professor Nicole Garnett, who led the drive for faith-based charter schools. The chief justice sounded uncertain during the oral argument in late April. In the past, he had said states may not discriminate against religious groups, but Oklahoma's law applied only to public schools, not private ones that were religious. Defenders of church-state separation had argued that charter schools by law were public, not "sectarian" or religious. They urged the court to uphold the laws as written. Four other conservative justices had signaled they would vote to allow the religious charter school. On Thursday, the court issued a one-line decision in the Oklahoma case after hearing arguments last month. "The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court," and it did not disclose how the eight justices voted. But Roberts was the only conservative who voiced doubt. The case had also divided officials in Oklahoma. The Catholic bishops of Tulsa and Oklahoma proposed to operate St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, and they applied to have it become a state-funded charter school. Read more: Supreme Court will decide if religious schools may be funded as public charters A divided state board approved the request. But the state's attorney general, Gentner Drummond, sued and argued the state constitution did not allow for public funds to be spent for churches or the teaching of religion. The state supreme court agreed and blocked the establishment of the new charter school. Lawyers for the Alliance Defending Freedom appealed to the Supreme Court and argued the state's decision violated the 1st Amendment's protection for the "free exercise" of religion. Rachel Laser, president of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, applauded the outcome. 'The Supreme Court's stalemate safeguards public education and upholds the separation of church and state," she said. "Charter schools are public schools that must be secular and serve all students. St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, which planned to discriminate against students, families, and staff and indoctrinate students into one religion, cannot operate as a public charter school." While Thursday's split decision is a major setback for religious rights advocates, it does not finally settle the issue of religious charter schools. It's possible, for example, that Justice Barrett may participate in a future case. Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Yahoo
05-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, turns down Trump appeal over disbursing foreign funds
A divided Supreme Court led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts turned down an appeal from President Trump's lawyers on Wednesday, keeping in place a judge's order that requires the government to disburse nearly $2 billion in foreign funds. Last week, Roberts put this dispute on pause in response to a late-evening appeal from Trump lawyers. After considering the issue over several days, the court by 5-4 majority sent the matter back to the federal judge to proceed. The tone of the order was cautious and tentative. Referring to U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, the court said he "should clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order, with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timelines." At issue are payments to nonprofit groups or private contractors who carry out work overseas that was funded by Congress and approved by the U.S. Agency for International Development. Shortly after taking office, Trump's officials froze those payments, including for work that had been completed. Read more: Trump's trade war is back on. Here's how tariffs could hit your wallet Joining the chief justice were Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Samuel A. Alito filed an angry dissent for four conservatives. "Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic 'No,' but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned," he wrote. "Today the Court makes a most unfortunate misstep that rewards an act of judicial hubris and imposes a $2 billion penalty on American taxpayers." Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh joined his dissent. Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
05-03-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, turns down Trump appeal over disbursing foreign funds
WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts turned down an appeal from President Trump's lawyers on Wednesday, keeping in place a judge's order that requires the government to disburse nearly $2 billion in foreign funds. Last week, Roberts put this dispute on pause in response to a late-evening appeal from Trump lawyers. After considering the issue over several days, the court by 5-4 majority sent the matter back to the federal judge to proceed. The tone of the order was cautious and tentative. Referring to U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, the court said he 'should clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order, with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timelines.' At issue are payments to nonprofit groups or private contractors who carry out work overseas that was funded by Congress and approved by the U.S. Agency for International Development. Shortly after taking office, Trump's officials froze those payments, including for work that had been completed. Joining the chief justice were Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Samuel A. Alito filed an angry dissent for four conservatives. 'Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic 'No,' but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned,' he wrote. 'Today the Court makes a most unfortunate misstep that rewards an act of judicial hubris and imposes a $2 billion penalty on American taxpayers.' Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh joined his dissent.
Yahoo
22-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court turns away — for now — Trump's appeal seeking to fire agency official
The Supreme Court on Friday turned down President Trump's appeal seeking to fire an agency official. Instead, the justices said they would weigh in on the matter only after a judge rules next week on whether the firing was legal. The decision is a small but temporary setback for Trump and his lawyers, Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Elena Kagan, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett agreed to put off a decision for now. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson said they would have rejected Trump's appeal. Meanwhile, Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Samuel A. Alito said they would have granted and required the judge to reconsider her decision that blocked the firing. Trump's lawyers may have overplayed their hand by rushing an appeal to the court on Sunday. They described the temporary halt on firing the head of the small agency that protects whistleblowers "an unprecedented assault on the separation of powers" which would impose "irreparable harm" on the president. Last week, a federal judge in Washington issued a temporary restraining order to block the firing of Hampton Dellinger until Feb. 26. Dellinger was appointed last year to a five-year term to lead the Office of Special Counsel, an independent agency created by Congress in 1978 to protect federal employees who report abuse or wrongdoing. Judge Amy Berman Jackson granted the temporary restraining order and said she would issue a ruling after holding a hearing Feb. 26. Trump and his lawyers have aggressively asserted his executive power as president. They say the president can fire officials who hold executive or policy-making positions throughout the government, including those in agencies which were given independent authority by Congress. The Office of Special Counsel was created by Congress in Jimmy Carter signed the bill into law and said the new independent agency would defend federal employees who suffered abuse or exposed wrongdoing. The agency has 29 employees and and keeps a rather low year, President Biden appointed North Carolina attorney Hampton Dellinger to a five-year term as head of the agency, and he was confirmed by the Senate. On Feb. 7, Trump's personnel director sent him a one-sentence email saying he had been terminated immediately. He sued arguing that his firing was in "flagrant disregard" of the law. Judge Jackson put his firing on hold temporarily. The U.S. court of appeals refused, by 2-1 vote, to set aside her order. Trump's acting solicitor general Sarah Harris sent an emergency appeal to Chief Justice John G. Roberts on Sunday. She called the judge's temporary reinstatement of Dellinger "an unprecedented assault on the separation of powers that warrants immediate relief." Roberts has written several opinions holding that the president has the broad authority to remove officials who wield executive power. Conservatives refer to this as independent executive theory which holds that the Constitution gave the president the power to control all the executive officers of the U.S. government. "Under our Constitution, the 'executive power'—all of it—is vested in a President," he wrote in 2020. That means he has a nearly "unrestricted removal power" over officials who wield executive or policy-making authority, he said. That decision said the president was free to remove the head of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, even though Congress had said the appointed director could be fired only for cause. Trump's lawyers cited that precedent as confirming the president's authority over agency officials like Dellinger. The chief justice's 2020 opinion did not overrule earlier decisions that said Congress could establish multi-member commissions or boards whose members would be appointed for fixed terms. Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
