Judges & Justices

We keep that promise today.

The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.

Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights – to freely participate in our political community.

Blacks were entitled to citizenship because they were Americans.

The Court has repurposed the Fourteenth Amendment to protect its own set of preferred rights … the Court does so again by recognizing a constitutional right to citizenship for the children of all foreign birth tourists and illegal aliens.

We are, as we have said many times before, ‘a court of review, not of first view.’

An individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in records about his cell phone’s location, and police intrude on that constitutionally protected interest when they demand the information — even though for only a limited time, and…

I cannot support this irresponsible escapade.

The police conducted a search when they gained access to Location History data.

Hawaii chose to protect the unaware property owner while leaving open to gun owners the opportunity to carry firearms where consent has been provided.

Today’s decision makes one thing clear: The Court’s objective is protecting guns, not consistently preserving any principle of law.

With this decision, the Court has now manipulated Bruen into a free-for-all that lets the Judiciary thwart the will of legislatures by privileging access to firearms above all else.

I think Bruen was wrongly decided. But if it is going to be our precedent, the majority should at least endeavor to apply it faithfully.

Having enshrined a returning LPR’s already-admitted status, Congress could not have meant for the guarantees it was affording to be so cavalierly swept aside.

The majority undermined the rule of law and rights of immigrants, and that the government should not be able to impose severe consequences because of unproven allegations.

Border officers did not have the burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Lau had committed a crime involving moral turpitude.

And we have rejected the proposition that the Constitution permits an individual to be treated differently based on a 'perception that members of the same racial group — regardless of their age, education, economic status, or the community…

We have said that our ’Constitution is color-blind.’ It ‘almost never’ allows government actors to treat persons differently based on their race.

Under the test, officers will need to quickly assess a person’s race, and if officers and courts must craft special rules for black persons, what about dark-skinned Latinos, other Latinos, and members of other minority groups?

It is dangerous to allow an individual to be treated differently based on statistics, studies, or expert testimony that purports to show that members of the racial or ethnic group to which he belongs are more likely to act in a certain way…

This Court routinely declines to provide relief to law-abiding Americans when it would actually matter, even after lower courts conspicuously flout this Court's precedents in ruling against them.

It is unfortunate that the Court chose to intervene at the request of a convicted murderer to correct the Eleventh Circuit's inconsequential foot fault.

This Court declines to even hear Florida’s claims, even though it has nowhere else to bring them.

The State of Florida moved for leave to file a complaint against Washington and California for defying federal law by providing commercial driver’s licenses to illegal aliens who cannot read English.