- First, the US Supreme court has limited federal judges’ power to block Trump orders:
“Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered a scathing dissent. ‘The court’s decision to permit the executive to violate the constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law,” Jackson wrote. “Given the critical role of the judiciary in maintaining the rule of law … it is odd, to say the least, that the court would grant the executive’s wish to be freed from the constraints of law by prohibiting district courts from ordering complete compliance with the constitution,’” noted The Guardian.
- Second, the US Supreme Court allows parents to opt out of lessons with LGBT books
“the ruling prompted a fierce dissent from the liberal justice Sonya Sotomayor, who said that public education was intended to be a unifying experience for children and ’the most pervasive means for promoting our common destiny.’ But she added that concept would become ‘a mere memory’ if pupils were ‘insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents’ religious beliefs,’ " also according to The Guardian.
The first decision this Friday just clears the road for Trump Admin to do damned near anything, now that the judiciary is out of the way. With this, there is no Congress and Supreme Court to check and balance the Executive now.
The majority ignores entirely whether the President’s Executive Order is constitutional, instead focusing only on the question whether federal courts have the equitable authority to issue universal injunctions. Yet the Order’s patent unlawfulness reveals the gravity of the majority’s error and underscores why equity supports universal injunctions as appropriate remedies in this kind of case. As every conceivable source of law confirms, birthright citizenship is the law of the land.
Justice Jackson: The majority cannot deny that our Constitution was designed to split the powers of a monarch between the governing branches to protect the People. Nor is it debatable that the role of the Judiciary in our constitutional scheme is to ensure fidelity to law. But these core values are strangely absent from today’s decision. Focusing on inapt comparisons to impotent English tribunals, the majority ignores the Judiciary’s foundational duty to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States. The majority’s ruling thus not only diverges from first principles, it is also profoundly dangerous, since it gives the Executive the go-ahead to sometimes wield the kind of unchecked, arbitrary power the Founders crafted our Constitution to eradicate. The very institution our founding charter charges with the duty to ensure universal adherence to the law now requires judges to shrug and turn their backs to intermittent lawlessness. With deep disillusionment, I dissent.
Justice Sotomayor: The rule of law is not a given in this Nation, nor any other. It is a precept of our democracy that will endure only if those brave enough in every branch fight for its survival. Today, the Court abdicates its vital role in that effort. With the stroke of a pen, the President has made a “solemn mockery” of our Constitution. Rather than stand firm, the Court gives way. Because such complicity should know no place in our system of law, I dissent.
Read the full text if you’d like.
Read the full text from Internet Archive
Mark Joseph Stern from Bluesky: countless conservative judges issued universal injunctions against the Biden administration, and the Supreme Court never halted the practice. Now, barely five months into Trump’s second term, the court puts an end to these injunctions. A brazen double standard.