Judges & Justices

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.

I think that means it's incumbent on us to do things, to act in ways, that shore up public confidence.

Everyone believes the court system is outside the political sphere. I think that means it's incumbent on us to do things, to act in ways, that shore up public confidence.

Public confidence is really all the judiciary has.

I think they view us as purely political actors, which I don’t think is an accurate understanding of what we do.

The Court’s decision to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law.

The decision … gives the Executive the go-ahead to sometimes wield the kind of unchecked, arbitrary power the Founders crafted our Constitution to eradicate.

The Court has now declared for the first time in history that the most powerful official in the United States can … become a law unto himself.

It’s important for maintaining public confidence in the judiciary and the Supreme Court to know how the opinions are being conveyed and received and understood by the American people.

I’m aware of it. I definitely pay attention to it.

There can be a risk in writing the opinion of lock-in effect—of making a snap judgment and putting it in writing.