Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

US Supreme Court Tag

Posted by William A. Jacobson on March 18, 2017 52 Comments
After the 9th Circuit refused to vacate a TRO issued by a federal judge in Washington State as to Donald Trump's first executive order, I suggested that those judicial decisions not only were legally unjustified, they presented a threat to Trump's lawful executive powers and that dropping and reworking the executive order would be a mistake:
To accept the 9th Circuit ruling is to accept that the President does not have the powers vested in him by the Constitution and Congress.
And so it came to pass, with a narrowed and reworked second executive order being enjoined by district court judges in Hawaii and Maryland. There's an interesting article at the LawFare blog, written by Benjamin Wittes and Quinta Jurecic, The Revolt of the Judges: What Happens When the Judiciary Doesn’t Trust the President’s Oath. The central thesis of the post is that judicial aggressiveness towards the executive orders may reflect distrust of Trump by many in the federal judiciary. That distrust, in turn, may be leading judges to cast aside the legally required deference to the political branches that the Constitution, legislation, and Supreme Court precedent require.

Posted by Mary Chastain on March 06, 2017 46 Comments
The Supreme Court has chosen to send a Virginia transgender student's bathroom case back to the lower court after President Donald Trump's administration decided to do away with a directive from former President Barack Obama that stated students in schools can use which bathroom they want. The court should have heard the case later this month. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit had decided to allow transgender teen Gavin Grimm to use the bathroom of her choice.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 10, 2017 59 Comments
So this is curious. A Judge at the 9th Circuit, whose name is not revealed, has requested a vote be taken whether to conduct en banc (full court) review of the February 9, 2017, Order by a three-judge panel denying Trump's request for a stay of the District Court Temporary Restraining Order. That TRO put a halt to all substantive aspects of Trump's immigration Executive Order, including the temporary halt to visa entry from six failed states known for ISIS and al Qaeda presence, plus state sponsor of terrorism Iran.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 09, 2017 58 Comments
The buzz overnight is that Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch criticized President Trump for attacking the Judge who granted the TRO against the Immigration Executive Order, and also the 9th Circuit. Both Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal and Republican Ben Sasse said the terms "disheartening" and "demoralizing" were used. That a nominee (or a Supreme Court Justice) would comment on a case that may come before him in the future struck me as both surprising and unwise.

Posted by Mark Finkelstein on January 31, 2017 47 Comments
On MSNBC this evening, Chris Matthews cautioned Democratic Senators that if they vote to confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, they will have to answer for it for the rest of their political career. His reasoning was a supremely political one: that at age 49, Gorsuch is likely to be on the Court for 30 years. And that any Dem voting to confirm him would have to answer, over all those years, for his decisions on controversial issues such as abortion and gun rights: "it will be on you," warned Matthews.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 29, 2017 14 Comments
Donald Trump recently said that he would announce his Supreme Court pick on Thursday. But there are multiple reports today that the announcement may come as early as Monday. Moving up the pick would be viewed as a conversation changer after a media frenzy over the weekend regarding the visa and refugee Executive Order. The AP reports:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 04, 2017 48 Comments
We have covered many times how Democrats laid the foundation for Republicans to use the Nuclear Option for a Trump Supreme Court nominee. That Nuclear Option would construe Senate Rules to only require 51 votes for cloture, effectively eliminating the filibuster, the 60-vote requirement to close debate. The foundation was laid in 2013, when Democrats, who then controlled the Senate and presidency, used the Nuclear Option to eliminate the filibuster for almost all Obama nominees. Harry Reid was gloating about going nuclear. Republicans warned that Democrats would regret the day.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 20, 2016 26 Comments
As discussed many times recently, Democrats have a yuge problem stopping Trump from naming just about anyone he wants to the Supreme Court, Will Republicans press SCOTUS Nuclear Option button? In 2013, Democrats pulled the Nuclear Option, eliminating filibusters on all judicial nominees short of the Supreme Court. That was an imaginary line in the sand Democrats thought they could rely on to defend themselves in the future as to Republican nominees to the Supreme Court. Though Republican's sometimes threatened to go nuclear, only Harry Reid and the Democrats did it. Republicans warned Democrats that they would come to regret it, maybe sooner than Democrats expected:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 18, 2016 31 Comments
The Nuclear Option was used for the first time by Harry Reid in 2013 to allow Obama to stuff the lower federal courts with Obama nominees despite Democrats not having a filibuster proof majority in the Senate at the time. It was a clear possibility at the time that Democrats were about to lose control of the Senate in the 2014 cycle, so the court-stuffing Nuclear Option was a desperate last-minute tactic. Democrats said that rule change would not apply to the Supreme Court. Holding back on using the Nuclear Option for the Supreme Court was a meaningless gesture at the time, because there were no Supreme Court vacancies.

Posted by Bryan Jacoutot on October 30, 2016 38 Comments
The Supreme Court has made it official that next year, for the first time in its history, it will hear a case involving a transgender person's right to use a bathroom that corresponds with his "gender identity" while at school. To briefly summarize, Gavin Grimm (or GG as he is referred to in court documents) is a transgender male. This means that the sex  at birth was female, but he identifies as male. According to court documents, Grimm “lives all aspects of his life as a boy” but has not had sex reassignment surgery. Prior to the start of his sophomore year of high school, Grimm and his mother informed the Gloucester County School Board that he was a transgender boy. By all accounts the Board was exceedingly accommodating. For about seven weeks (and with his school’s permission), Grimm utilized the boys’ room without incident. Eventually, however, students took note of the fact that Grimm was a transgender boy, and some were less than comfortable with the arrangement.
Accessibility by WAH