Judges & Justices

They're dangerous in terms of individual justices' security and they're not appropriate in the way to treat a coordinate branch of government.

For some of us, those threats have come very close, and all of us live with the knowledge that they may again materialize.

I don’t think that it’s so much a problem anymore.

I will say that that’s an extremely difficult question for a pretty obvious reason, I think, which is that I don’t think that you would want an enforcement system that was controlled by the executive branch or by the legislature.

The Supreme Court police expect a smaller but still very substantial 38% annual increase in threats this year, which follows a 25% increase last year.

Right now visitors walk into the court and that’s where they are checked. That’s where they are sent through the magnetometer and checked for weapons and so forth.

I don’t think that you would want an enforcement system that was controlled by the executive branch or by the legislature.

The Capitol Police Chief recently testified that threats against Congress are up 50% this year.

I first joined the court in 2010. Our security was very different at the time.

These statements are really unhelpful, they are dangerous in terms of individual justices’ security and they’re not appropriate in the way to treat a coordinate branch of government.

The references—of filth, disease, and primitiveness—are shot through with racial stereotypes and tropes.

After today, a Secretary can announce to the world that she didn’t consult with anyone—more, that she didn’t evaluate country conditions at all—before making, extending, or terminating a TPS designation.

This alternative account pitches Black Americans against immigrants when the advocates who promoted the 14th Amendment did no such thing.

Suppose the child never visited the United States while growing up and was inculcated with hatred of this country.

The Court's interpretation is not only contrary to the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, it produces grotesque results.

The Court’s conception of a color-blind Constitution and the Government’s (and principal dissent’s) cramped, group-specific reading of the Citizenship Clause are two sides of the same coin, stemming from a basic misunderstanding of the…

Despite his longstanding endorsement of a ‘colorblind’ Constitution, Justice Thomas, now surprisingly suggests that the Citizenship Clause was a race-conscious remedial measure, relating only to ‘freed slaves such as Dred Scott’ — but that…

We break no new ground today.

Allowing a biological male athlete to compete on a girls' team necessarily displaces or disadvantages a female athlete—replacing her on the roster, knocking her out of the starting lineup, reducing her playing time, depriving her of a…

The question before the Court is: Under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, may schools maintain women's and girls' sports for biological females?

To provide equal opportunity for female athletes, schools do not merely maintain, for example, one soccer team, one basketball team, one ice hockey team, and one lacrosse team that are equally open to female and male athletes.

I am not sure that today’s opinion will stand the test of time.

Their bottom line is that, for certain people, being born on American soil will not suffice to confer citizenship.

The Reconstruction Amendments were an anticaste, antisubordination reset for the Nation, not a mere spot treatment for the dark stain of slavery.