By Steve Vladeck
https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/163-a-new-kind-of-judicial-supremacy?r=zv1g&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Monday, June 30, 2025
Saturday, June 28, 2025
Scotus bars nationwide injunctions, cuts birthright citizenship
Thanks to the United States Supreme Court there are children born in the USA who will be deported from the USA because their parents were not citizens when the child was born.
Some people are more equal than others. The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Amy Coney Barrett, accomplished this by holding that in the 18th century children born here were then NOT citizens.
Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States: (1) when that person's mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth, or (2) when that person's mother's presence in the United States at the time of said person's birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth.
Today the United States Supreme Court explained that a judge of the United States may not issue an order restraining the government nationwide. It wrote:
The “general rule in Equity [was] that all persons materially interested [in the suit] [were] to be made parties to it.” J. Story, Commentaries on Equity Pleadings §72, p. 74 (Story). Injunctions were no exception; there were “sometimes suits to restrain the actions of particular officers against particular plaintiffs.” S. Bray, Multiple Chancellors: Reforming the National Injunction, 131 Harv. L. Rev. 417, 425 (Bray, Multiple Chancellors).
But particularly noteworthy - beyond crippling District Judges - is the meassage on which Justice Sotomayor dissents:
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN and JUSTICE JACKSON join, dissenting.
Children born in the United States and subject to its laws are United States citizens. That has been the legal rule since the founding, and it was the English rule well before then. This Court once attempted to repudiate it, holding in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1857), that the children of enslaved black Americans were not citizens. To remedy that grievous error, Congress passed in 1866 and the States ratified in 1868 the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, which enshrined birthright citizenship in the Constitution. There it has remained, accepted and respected by Congress, by the Executive, and by this Court. Until today. It is now the President who attempts, in an Executive Order (Order or Citizenship Order), to repudiate birthright citizenship. Every court to evaluate the Order has deemed it patently unconstitutional and, for that reason, has enjoined the Federal Government from enforcing it.
Undeterred, the Government now asks this Court to grant emergency relief, insisting it will suffer irreparable harm unless it can deprive at least some children born in the United States of citizenship. See Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, Exec. Order No. 14160, 90 Fed. Reg. 8849 (2025).
Friday, June 27, 2025
SCOTUS: Parents' objections exempt students from teaching tolerance of same-sex mariage
Books like this - normalizing same sex weddings -
are seen by some as sanctioning sin.
The Supreme Court (6-3) says that
the children of objecting parents
may not be exposed to such an idea
absent parental consent.
It is significant that this book does not simply refer to same-sex marriage as an existing practice. Instead, it presents acceptance of same-sex marriage as a perspective that should be celebrated. The book’s narrative arc reaches its peak with the actual event of Uncle Bobby’s wedding, which is presented as a joyous event that is met with universal approval. See id., at 300a–305a. And again, there are many Americans who would view the event that way, and it goes without saying that they have every right to do so. But other Americans wish to present a different moral message to their children. And their ability to present that message is undermined when the exact opposite message is positively reinforced in the public school classroom at a very young age.
Alito, J, for the majority in Muhammad v Taylor.
I am the product of sixteen years of Catholic education. So as a child I was not subjected to the idea that one who is in love with another who is of the same sex is entitled to respect and autonomy. Then in college I read that a kiss is just a kiss, as Louis Armstrong of Queens sang.
But Neil Gorsuch and the other five Catholics on the Supreme Court think teaching public school children that same sex couples are entitled to tolerance and respect is a violation of the parents' right to teach their children otherwise. Of course it is no such thing - you can still teach your children whatever you want. Demonstrating the idea that respect for other visions is an example of liberty and justice for all is just that. It mandates nothing about one's personal intimate conduct.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor - of the Bronx - was educated at Cardinal Spellman High School - named after the conservative prelate who led the New York Archdiocese. She drew a similar conclusion. Dissenting, she began:
Public schools, this Court has said, are “‘at once the symbol of our democracy and the most pervasive means for promoting our common destiny.’” Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U. S. 578, 584 (1987). They offer to children of all faiths and backgrounds an education and an opportunity to practice living in our multicultural society. That experience is critical to our Nation’s civic vitality. Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents’ religious beliefs. Today’s ruling ushers in that new reality. Casting aside longstanding precedent, the Court invents a constitutional right to avoid exposure to “subtle” themes “contrary to the religious principles” that parents wish to instill in their children.
- GWC
Mahmoud v. Taylor - SCOTUS, June 27, 2025
During the 2022–2023 school year, the Montgomery County Board of Education (Board) introduced a variety of “LGBTQ+-inclusive” texts into the public school curriculum. Those texts included five “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks approved for students in kindergarten through fifth grade,***
The parents assert that the Board’s introduction of the “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks—combined with its decision to withhold notice and opt outs—unconstitutionally burdens their religious exercise. At this stage, the parents seek a preliminary injunction that would permit them to have their children excused from instruction related to the storybooks while this lawsuit proceeds.
To obtain that form of preliminary relief, the parents must show that: they are likely to succeed on the merits; they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; the balance of equities tips in their favor; and an injunction would be in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U. S. 7, 20. The parents have made such a showing. (b) The parents are likely to succeed on their claim that the Board’s policies unconstitutionally burden their religious exercise...
Thursday, June 26, 2025
New York disbars Kenneth Chesebro - architect of Trump plan to steal 2020 election
New York disbars Kenneth Chesebro - architect of Trump plan to steal 2020 election - State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department Decided and Entered: June 26, 2025 PM-143-25
I collaborated with Kenneth Chesebro when as a Laurence Tribe protege he was a key plaintiffs lawyer in the landark scientific evidence case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1994). I represented a bunch of scientists who explained that reason and attentiveness to evidence, replacing one explanatory vision with a second, not brick by brick assembly is how knowledge advances. Thus we went from geocentrism to heliocentrism, thanks to Galileo.
Chesebro has pleaded guilty in Georgia for his role in the `fake electors' scheme.
Another way to gut Medicaid - those denied care lack standing to sue
"The question is whether individual Medicaid beneficiaries may sue state officials under 42 U. S. C. §1983 for failing to comply with the any-qualified-provider provision. "
The answer is NO, according to the six right wing Catholics on the Supreme Court for whom the Beatitudes are no longer operational. Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson dissent. - GWC
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23–1275. Argued April 2, 2025—Decided June 26, 2025
Congress created Medicaid in 1965 to subsidize state healthcare for families and individuals “whose income and resources are insufficient to meet the costs of necessary medical services.” §1396–1. Medicaid offers States “a bargain”: federal funds in exchange for compliance with congressionally imposed conditions. To participate in Medicaid, States must submit a “plan for medical assistance” satisfying over 80 conditions in §1396a(a). If a State fails “to comply substantially” with any condition, the Secretary of Health and Human Services may withhold federal funding. §1396c. This case involves the any-qualified-provider provision in §1396a(a)(23)(A), which requires States to ensure that “any individual eligible for medical assistance . . . may obtain” it “from any [provider] qualified to perform the service . . . who undertakes to provide” it. The provision does not define “qualified,” leaving that to States’ traditional authority over health and safety matters. The question is whether individual Medicaid beneficiaries may sue state officials under 42 U. S. C. §1983 for failing to comply with the any-qualified-provider provision.
Tuesday, June 24, 2025
Emhoff to USC Law School
https://abovethelaw.com/2025/06/doug-emhoff-heads-to-top-law-school-to-serve-as-visiting-professor/
Scotus 6-3 stays pro-immigrant order by District Judge in Massachusettts
In matters of life and death, it is best to proceed with caution. In this case, the Government took the opposite approach. It wrongfully deported one plaintiff to Guatemala, even though an Immigration Judge found he was likely to face torture there. - Sonia Sotomayor -, Justice, Supreme Court of the United States
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 24A1153
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL. v. D.V. D., ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR STAY [June 23, 2025] T
he application for stay presented to JUSTICE JACKSON and by her referred to the Court is granted. The April 18, 2025, preliminary injunction of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, case No. 25–cv– 10676, is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN and JUSTICE JACKSON join, dissenting.
In matters of life and death, it is best to proceed with caution. In this case, the Government took the opposite approach. It wrongfully deported one plaintiff to Guatemala, even though an Immigration Judge found he was likely to face torture there. Then, in clear violation of a court order, it deported six more to South Sudan, a nation the State Department considers too unsafe for all but its most critical personnel. An attentive District Court’s timely intervention only narrowly prevented a third set of unlawful removals to Libya. Rather than allowing our lower court colleagues to manage this high-stakes litigation with the care and attention Rather than allowing our lower court colleagues to manage this high-stakes litigation with the care and attention [2 DHS v. D.V.D. SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting] it plainly requires, this Court now intervenes to grant the Government emergency relief from an order it has repeatedly defied. I cannot join so gross an abuse of the Court’s equitable discretion.
This case concerns the Government’s ability to conduct what is known as a “third country removal,” meaning a removal to any “country with a government that will accept the alien.” §1231(b)(1)(C)(iv); see §1231(b)(2)(E)(vii). Third-country removals are burdensome for the affected noncitizen, so Congress has sharply limited their use. They are permissible only after the Government tries each and every alternative noted in the statute, and determines they are all “impracticable, inadvisable, or impossible.” §§1231(b)(1)(C)(iv), (2)(E)(vii). Noncitizens facing removal of any sort are entitled under international and domestic law to raise a claim under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100–20, 1465 U. N. T. S. 113. Article 3 of the Convention prohibits returning any person “to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing
Noncitizens facing removal of any sort are entitled under international and domestic law to raise a claim under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100–20, 1465 U. N. T. S. 113. Article 3 of the Convention prohibits returning any person “to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing
Those regulations provide, among other things, that “[a] removal order . . . shall not be executed in circumstances that would violate Article 3.” 28 CFR §200.1 (2024).
Monday, June 23, 2025
Deportation without opportunity to be heard OK - Scotus - 6-3
In DHS v. DVD the United States Supreme Court, over the dissents of the three Democratic appointees, declared that due process is not reuired to deport someone to a "third country" - one in which the deportee has never set foot. In this case..Sudan.
Scotus: OK to deport alien to...anywhere
Kristi Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security
in El Salvador prison
None of us would feel comfortble in war-torn Sudan. Especially if we had never been there. But to the six Republicans on the U.S. Supreme Court ...no problem. None of that `send me your tired and your poor' stuff. So held the Supreme Court in Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., et alii. over the dissents of the three Democrat-appointed Justices. "A decent respect for the opinions of mankind" would lead you to join the dissenters:
The application for stay presented to JUSTICE JACKSON and by her referred to the Court is granted. The April 18, 2025, preliminary injunction of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, case No. 25–cv– 10676, is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of the Court.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN and JUSTICE JACKSON join, dissenting. In matters of life and death, it is best to proceed with caution. In this case, the Government took the opposite approach. It wrongfully deported one plaintiff to Guatemala, even though an Immigration Judge found he was likely to face torture there. Then, in clear violation of a court order, it deported six more to South Sudan, a nation the State Department considers too unsafe for all but its most critical personnel. An attentive District Court’s timely intervention only narrowly prevented a third set of unlawful removals to Libya.
Noncitizens facing removal of any sort are entitled under international and domestic law to raise a claim under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100–20, 1465 U. N. T. S. 113. Article 3 of the Convention prohibits returning any person “to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.” The United States is a party to the Convention, and in 1998 Congress passed the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act to implement its commands. The Act provides that “[i]t shall be the policy of the United States not to expel, extradite, or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture, regardless of whether the person is physically present in the United States.” §2242(a), 112 Stat. 2681–822, codified as note to 8 U. S. C. §1231. It also directs the Executive to “prescribe regulations to implement” the Convention. §2242(b), 112 Stat. 2681–822.
Those regulations provide, among other things, that “[a] removal order . . . shall not be executed in circumstances that would violate Article 3.” 28 CFR §200.1 (2024). B On February 18, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued an internal guidance document directing immigration officers to “review for removal all cases . . . on the non-detained docket” and “determine the viability of removal to a third country.” No. 1:25–cv–10676 (D Mass.), ECF Doc. No. 1–4, p. 2.
Sunday, June 22, 2025
China Supreme Court Bench Book
https://supremepeoplescourtmonitor.com/2025/06/22/benchbooks-judicial-handbooks-for-the-new-era/
Saturday, June 21, 2025
Harvard wins effort to preserve international students
Harvard University has sued the Trump administration to preserve its ability to enroll international students and restore draconian cuts in research money, two matters that threaten the core functions of the centuries-old institution.
A federal judge in Massachusetts, Allison D. Burroughs, an appointee of President Barack Obama, is presiding over both cases. She has often sided with Harvard, including on June 5 when she issued a temporary restraining order against the administration’s latest move to bar international students.
On both fronts, the Trump administration has said that it is punishing Harvard because it has failed to keep Jewish students safe by allowing antisemitism to flourish. It has added on to these accusations as the court fights have drawn on, saying that the university has used racial preferences in admissions in defiance of a Supreme Court ruling and that it has broken rules related to foreign gifts.
Harvard has denied the accusations. It says the administration is ignoring its efforts to protect the civil rights of its Jewish students, for example. And Harvard has argued that the federal government has violated its First Amendment rights and has ignored due process as it pursues its vendetta against the university.
On June 20, Judge Burroughs issued a three-page preliminary injunction, blocking the Trump administration’s actions to prevent international students from enrolling as the case works through the courts. The order said the government was forbidden from “implementing, instituting, maintaining, or giving any force or effect” to the Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to force Harvard out of the international student program.
Mahmoud Khalil ordered freed by NJ federal judge
Mahmoud Khalil v. Donald J. Trump
District of New Jersey June 20, 2025
Michael E. Farbiarz, D.J.
Federal officials detained a lawful permanent resident and seek to remove him from the United States for two reasons. One reason is that the Secretary of State has determined that his activities and presence in the United States “compromise a compelling . . . foreign policy interest.” The lawful permanent resident filed a habeas corpus petition and has moved to preliminarily enjoin federal officials from KHALIL v. JOYCE, et al. Doc. 299 Dockets.Justia.com 2 removing him from the United States based on the Secretary’s determination. The motion is granted.
Wednesday, June 18, 2025
Supreme Court - majority Catholic -denies six applications to stay execution.
Despite this teaching of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith all five practicing conservative Catholics on the Supreme Court - in the last week denied applicaitons for stay of execution:
06/13/25 Miscellaneous Order
06/11/25 Miscellaneous Order
06/10/25 Miscellaneous Order
06/10/25 Miscellaneous Order
06/09/25 Miscellaneous Order
New revision of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the death penalty – Rescriptum “ex Audentia SS.mi”, 02.08.2018
The Supreme Pontiff Francis, in the audience granted on 11 May 2018 to the undersigned Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has approved the following new draft of no. 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, arranging for it to be translated into various languages and inserted in all the editions of the aforementioned Catechism.
The death penalty
2267. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.
Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.
Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.
__________________________
[1] FRANCIS, Address to Participants in the Meeting organized by the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, 11 October 2017: L’Osservatore Romano, 13 October 2017, 5.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)