Judges & Justices

It’s likely to result in tangible harm to real people.

The majority thwarts Congress’s will twice over: once, in dulling the tool Congress created for enforcing all federal rights, and again in vitiating one of those rights altogether.

At a minimum, it will deprive Medicaid recipients in South Carolina of their only meaningful way of enforcing a right that Congress has expressly granted to them.

[T]he project of stymying one of the country’s great civil rights laws continues.… South Carolina asks us to hollow out [Section 1983] so that the State can evade liability for violating the rights of its Medicaid recipients to choose…

We do have a sense of what comes next: as with those past rulings, today’s decision is likely to result in tangible harm to real people.

It was precisely because the goals of the 1871 Act were so ambitious that those most committed to the structures it targeted, including many in South Carolina, opposed the measure so vehemently.

Impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.

The enterprise around which Gorsuch built his career and reputation is bogus.

Far from being 'insufficiently pliable,' I think pure textualism is incessantly malleable—that’s its primary problem.

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.

It is precisely because of this solemn duty that, in my view, it is imperative that we interpret statutes consistent with all relevant indicia of what Congress wanted.

Gorsuch’s critique... stems from an unfortunate misunderstanding of the judicial role.

The majority today is wrong as a matter of precedent: This Court has held that the Hobbs Act, like its precursors, sets up a single judicial review mechanism for agency rules and orders, and prevents later collateral attacks on them in…

Today's holding undermines the certainty and finality Congress sought in designing a mechanism for judicial review; it subjects all administrative schemes, and the many businesses and individuals relying on them, to the ever-present risk…

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.