Latest news with #SCOTUSblog
The Hill
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Ketanji Brown Jackson turns independent streak loose on fellow justices
To hear Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson tell it, it's a 'perilous moment for our Constitution.' The Supreme Court's most junior justice had pointed exchanges with her colleagues on the bench this term, increasingly accusing them of unevenly applying the law — even if it meant standing on her own from the court's other liberal justices. Jackson has had an independent streak since President Biden nominated her to the bench in 2022. But the dynamic has intensified this term, especially as litigation over President Trump's sweeping agenda reached the court. It climaxed with her final dissent of decision season, when Jackson accused her fellow justices of helping Trump threaten the rule of law at a moment they should be 'hunkering down.' 'It is not difficult to predict how this all ends,' Jackson wrote. 'Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more.' Her stark warning came as Trump's birthright citizenship order split the court on its 6-3 ideological lines, with all three Democratic appointed justices dissenting from the decision to limit nationwide injunctions. Jackson bounded farther than her two liberal colleagues, writing in a blistering solo critique that said the court was embracing Trump's apparent request for permission to 'engage in unlawful behavior.' The decision amounts to an 'existential threat to the rule of law,' she said. It wasn't the first time Jackson's fellow liberal justices left her out in the cold. She has been writing solo dissents since her first full term on the bench. Jackson did so again in another case last month when the court revived the energy industry's effort to axe California's stricter car emission standard. Jackson accused her peers of ruling inequitably. 'This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens,' Jackson wrote. 'Because the Court had ample opportunity to avoid that result, I respectfully dissent.' Rather than join Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent that forewent such fiery language, Jackson chose to pen her own. The duo frequently agrees. They were on the same side in 94 percent of cases this term, according to data from SCOTUSblog, more than any other pair except for Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, the court's two leading conservatives. Sometimes Sotomayor signs on to Jackson's piercing dissents, including when she last month condemned the court's emergency order allowing the Department of Government Efficiency to access Americans' Social Security data. 'The Court is thereby, unfortunately, suggesting that what would be an extraordinary request for everyone else is nothing more than an ordinary day on the docket for this Administration, I would proceed without fear or favor,' Jackson wrote. But it appears there are rhetorical lines the most senior liberal justice won't cross. In another case, regarding disability claims, Sotomayor signed onto portions of Jackson's dissent but rejected a footnote in which Jackson slammed the majority's textualism as 'somehow always flexible enough to secure the majority's desired outcome.' 'Pure textualism's refusal to try to understand the text of a statute in the larger context of what Congress sought to achieve turns the interpretive task into a potent weapon for advancing judicial policy preferences,' the most junior justice wrote, refusing to remove the footnote from her dissent. Jackson's colleagues don't see it that way. 'It's your job to do the legal analysis to the best you can,' Chief Justice John Roberts told a crowd of lawyers at a judicial conference last weekend, rejecting the notion that his decisions are driven by the real-world consequences. 'If it leads to some extraordinarily improbable result, then you want to go back and take another look at it,' Roberts continued. 'But I don't start from what the result looks like and go backwards.' Though Roberts wasn't referencing Jackson's recent dissents, her willingness to call out her peers hasn't gone unaddressed. Jackson's dissent in the birthright citizenship case earned a rare, merciless smackdown from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, cosigned by the court's conservative majority. Replying to Jackson's remark that 'everyone, from the President on down, is bound by law,' Barrett turned that script into her own punchline. 'That goes for judges too,' the most junior conservative justice clapped back. Deriding Jackson's argument as 'extreme,' Barrett said her dissenting opinion ran afoul of centuries of precedent and the Constitution itself. 'We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,' Barrett wrote. The piercing rebuke was a staunch departure from the usually restrained writing of the self-described 'one jalapeño gal.' That's compared to the five-jalapeño rhetoric of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, Barrett said, the late conservative icon for whom she clerked. On today's court, it is often Thomas who brings some of the most scathing critiques of Jackson, perhaps most notably when the two took diametrically opposite views of affirmative action two years ago. Page after page, Thomas ripped into Jackson's defense of race-conscious college admissions, accusing her of labeling 'all blacks as victims.' 'Her desire to do so is unfathomable to me. I cannot deny the great accomplishments of black Americans, including those who succeeded despite long odds,' Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion. It isn't Thomas's practice to announce his separate opinions from the bench, but that day, he said he felt compelled to do so. As he read it aloud from the bench for 11 minutes, Jackson stared blankly ahead into the courtroom. Jackson's boldness comes across not only in the court's decision-making. At oral arguments this term, she spoke 50 percent more than any other justice. She embraces her openness. She told a crowd in May while accepting an award named after former President Truman that she liked to think it was because they both share the same trait: bravery. 'I am also told that some people think I am courageous for the ways in which I engage with litigants and my colleagues in the courtroom, or the manner in which I address thorny issues in my legal writings,' Jackson said. 'Some have even called me fearless.'
Yahoo
20-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
State of Faith transition
This article was first published in the State of Faith newsletter. Sign up to receive the newsletter in your inbox each Monday night. I don't think anyone dreams of being a religion reporter when they grow up. It's not the type of job you bring up during playground debates on the relative merits of being a fireman, superhero or unicorn trainer. Instead, religion reporter is the type of role you start thinking of when you're already mostly grown. Some of my reporter friends adopted the dream while in college, as I did, while others were already full-time reporters when they discovered the magic of writing about faith. And it really is magic, if you ask me. Religion is an endlessly fascinating topic, the kind of beat that allows you to write about politics, sports, psychedelic mushrooms, outer space and reality TV all at once, as I did over the past 11 years at the Deseret News. But now, I'm stepping away from that magic, at least for a little while. I've accepted a job as managing editor of SCOTUSblog, where I'll still be able to dabble in religion writing, but mostly think about the Supreme Court. Even two weeks after making the decision, I'm still sort of shocked to read that sentence: I'm stepping away. I've loved this work and will miss it — and this newsletter! — dearly, but I feel confident that now is the right time to try something new and to reorient my relationship to religion. It's the right time to focus on my faith again, and not just faith stories. Although I'm moving on, this newsletter isn't going anywhere. My former editors at the Deseret News will keep it going with writers that I'm grateful to call my friends. Please keep following along and celebrating the wild, wonderful world of religion. The Supreme Court said no, but this legal battle lives on The faith-related surprise in a new survey on famous quotes As I noted above, my new job is with SCOTUSblog. The 'SCOTUS' part of the name is an acronym for Supreme Court of the United States. SCOTUSblog was founded in 2002 and provides in-depth, nonbiased analysis of the Supreme Court's work. It's perhaps best known for hosting a chatroom, or live blog, on Supreme Court decision days. SCOTUSblog was an important resource for me during my time at the Deseret News. I'm honored to now have an opportunity to help lead the site. The Forward's recent feature on a Jewish farmer in Illinois who is working with a dying synagogue in Pennsylvania is as powerful as it is surprising. It's a testament to what's possible when strangers become friends. Speaking of powerful stories, The Atlantic's recent essay on the death penalty left me wrestling with dozens of difficult, faith-related questions. In mid-May, Deseret's Margaret Darby had a chance to visit the set for 'The Chosen' in rural Utah. I loved the story she did about fans of the show who flew in from all over the world to help with filming. Thank you all for following my work. Your support has meant the world to me. I hope you'll share that same support with the new shepherds of this newsletter. The Deseret News does amazing work, and I'm looking forward to reading State of Faith week after week moving forward.
Reuters
19-05-2025
- Business
- Reuters
Indicted Supreme Court lawyer Goldstein asks judge to toss US tax charges
May 19 (Reuters) - Prominent former U.S. Supreme Court lawyer Thomas Goldstein has asked a federal judge to dismiss criminal charges stemming from his side career as a high-stakes poker player, disputing the government's evidence that he flouted tax laws. Lawyers for Goldstein at law firm Munger, Tolles & Olson on Friday filed pretrial requests to a U.S. judge in Maryland seeking to exclude statements he had made to U.S. customs agents and to force the government to disclose more information about its allegations. Goldstein was indicted in January for tax evasion and other alleged tax crimes connected to his poker playing, which featured games in the United States and abroad with stakes reaching into the millions of dollars. The charges mainly relate to his federal income taxes for the 2016-2021 tax years. Goldstein has pleaded not guilty. The prosecution has drawn widespread attention given his national prominence as a top appellate lawyer before his retirement from practice in 2023. Goldstein, the former publisher of the SCOTUSblog news site, has argued more than 40 Supreme Court cases and represented major corporate clients. Goldstein and his defense lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A spokesperson for the U.S. attorney's office for Maryland declined to comment. In one filing, Goldstein accused prosecutors of withholding, opens new tab information beneficial to his defense, including full witness statements from some employees of his former law firm Goldstein & Russell. Prosecutors contend Goldstein illegally deducted salaries and health benefits from four women who did not qualify as employees of the firm based on the little amount of work they did. Goldstein also contends he filed a tax return in each year identified in the charging documents and said that he paid the outstanding taxes with penalties and interest. He urged U.S. District Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby to throw out, opens new tab statements he allegedly made to U.S. customs officials in 2018, arguing he was in custody at the time and should have been advised of certain protections, including the right to remain silent. Prosecutors allege Goldstein told a customs officer that about $968,000 he was carrying in cash was gambling income. Goldstein also said there is no evidence he ever affirmatively instructed office managers at his law firm to mischaracterize personal transactions as business expenses. He said some of the charged crimes fall outside the six-year window in which they must be filed under relevant U.S. tax laws. Goldstein's trial is scheduled for January 2026. The case is United States of America v. Thomas C. Goldstein, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, No. 8:25-cr-00006-LKG. For United States: Patrick Kibbe of the U.S. attorney's office, and Stanley Okula Jr of the Justice Department For Goldstein: Jonathan Kravis, Stephany Reaves and Adeel Mohammadi of Munger, Tolles & Olson Read more: Supreme Court veteran Goldstein wins release again in tax crimes case Supreme Court lawyer pleads not guilty in tax case tied to poker winnings Leading US Supreme Court attorney Tom Goldstein charged with tax crimes
Yahoo
23-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
The Dispatch buying SCOTUSblog
The Dispatch is buying the digital media website SCOTUSblog, the outlets announced Wednesday. SCOTUSblog covers all things Supreme Court and has been a go-to resource for journalists, lawyers and court watchers for more than two decades. 'Reliable coverage of the Supreme Court has never been more important,' The Dispatch co-founder Steve Hayes wrote to readers Wednesday. 'With an unbridled executive branch and a Congress eager to surrender its constitutional prerogatives, the federal judiciary is certain to play an increasingly important role in shaping the country's direction.' The Dispatch was launched by Hayes and fellow conservative journalist Jonah Goldberg after President Trump took the Republican party by storm. 'Our job is to help our members understand this role and the decisions that will shape the nation's future, in both the short and long term,' Hayes wrote. News of the deal, the terms for which were not disclosed, was first reported by The New York Times. SCOTUSblog co-founder Amy Howe, a top legal journalist in Washington, will join The Dispatch as part of the deal. Hayes said The Dispatch will maintain SCOTUSblog 'as users have come to enjoy it' and continue to offer its existing content to all readers at no cost. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
23-04-2025
- Business
- The Hill
The Dispatch buying SCOTUSblog
The Dispatch is buying the digital media website SCOUTSblog, the outlets announced on Wednesday. SCOTUSblog covers all things Supreme Court and has been a go-to resource for journalists, lawyers and court watchers for over two decades. 'Reliable coverage of the Supreme Court has never been more important,' Dispatch co-founder Steve Hayes wrote to readers on Wednesday. 'With an unbridled executive branch and a Congress eager to surrender its constitutional prerogatives, the federal judiciary is certain to play an increasingly important role in shaping the country's direction.' The Dispatch was launched by Hayes and fellow conservative journalist Jonah Goldberg after President Trump took the Republican party by storm. 'Our job is to help our members understand this role and the decisions that will shape the nation's future, in both the short and long term,' Hayes wrote. News of the deal, the terms for which were not disclosed, was first reported by The New York Times. SCOTUSblog co-founder Amy Howe, a top legal journalist in Washington, will join The Dispatch as part of the deal. Hayes said the Dispatch will maintain SCOTUSblog 'as users have come to enjoy it' and continue to offer its existing content to all readers at no cost.
