Judges & Justices

There is simply nothing in the law to support today's result.

The majority today is wrong as a matter of text: The Hobbs Act gives the courts of appeals exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of agency action, meaning that district courts have no jurisdiction to do so.

Those of us who are privileged to work inside the court must not lose sight of this institution’s unique mission and responsibility: to rule without fear or favor.

Equal Justice Under Law remains this court’s guiding light nearly a century after those words were first engraved there.

The Court’s remarkably lenient approach to standing in this case contrasts starkly with the stern stance it has taken in cases concerning the rights of ordinary citizens.

Even the mere appearance of favoritism can undermine confidence in the integrity of the judiciary.

I worry that the fuel industry’s gain comes at a reputational cost for this court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests.

Our ruling will no doubt aid future attempts by the fuel industry to attack the Clean Air Act.

The government may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court as unaffected…

I worry that the fuel industry's gain comes at a reputational cost for this court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests.

Congress plainly protected their right to do so when it crafted Title I. Yet, the Court ignores that right today.

Disabled Americans who have retired from the workforce simply want to enjoy the fruits of their labor free from discrimination.

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.

This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this court than ordinary citizens.

The government 'do what it wants to do regardless, rendering constraints of law irrelevant and unleashing devastation in the process.'

There should be almost no judicial scrutiny of these kinds of laws at all.

This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field.

Our role is not ‘to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic’ of the law before us, but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment.

We leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.

Have not been able to show a history of widespread and conspicuous discrimination

Transgender people have undoubtedly experienced discrimination

The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound. The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements.

Because neither Texas nor Fasken successfully intervened, they may not obtain judicial review of the commission's licensing decision under the Hobbs Act.

In short, the Hobbs Act affords judicial review to those who were parties before the commission.