Judges & Justices

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.

Questions regarding the law’s policy are thus appropriately left to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.

The ongoing debate over the efficacy of sex-transition treatments for children confirms that medical and regulatory authorities are not of one mind.

We have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents.

You sowed the wind, and now the country will reap the whirlwind.

Congress must use clearer language under the Constitution’s spending clause if it wishes to outlaw such unintentional discrimination.

In imposing a higher bar for discrimination claims based on educational services as compared to other sorts of disability discrimination claims, the chief justice declared, the lower courts bungled the unambiguous directive of the law.

A vigorous and energetic Executive… for a feeble executive implies a feeble execution of the government.

If every member of the executive branch operates according to the president’s will and at the president’s pleasure, then voters know who to blame when something goes wrong.

We reject this chilling vision of the power of the state to strip away the critical right of parents to guide the religious development of their children

[W]e hold that the Board's introduction of the 'LGBTQ+-inclusive' storybooks — combined with its decision to withhold notice to parents and to forbid opt outs — substantially interferes with the religious development of their children and…