Judges & Justices

I would say the state of our democracy.

That temporary, practical, harm-reducing preservation of the status quo was no match for this Court’s demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this President’s legally dubious actions in an emergency posture.

The plain text of both the ADA and Section 504 plainly applies to 'qualified individuals with disabilities,' without any reference to where the disabled person obtains a covered service.

ADA and Rehabilitation claims based on educational services should be subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts.

Presents a specific, if subtle, message about marriage.

Ketanji Brown Jackson, the only justice to provide a written dissent, sharply criticized the decision as 'hubristic and senseless.'

The dual state that you lived in, and that you worked in, and that must be called out unflinchingly whenever it rears its head

A zone of lawlessness within which the Executive has the prerogative to take or leave the law as it wishes

An existential threat to the rule of law

But determining the nationally uniform interim legal status for several years of, say, the Clean Power Plan or Title IX regulations or mifepristone rules is a role that the American people appropriately expect this court — and not only the…

This court's actions in resolving applications for interim relief help provide clarity and uniformity as to the interim legal status of major new federal statutes, rules, and executive orders

Not the district courts or courts of appeals, will often still be the ultimate decisionmaker as to the interim legal status of major new federal statutes and executive actions

Yet, for some reason, this Court sees fit to step in now and release the President's wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation.

At bottom, this case is about whether that action amounts to a structural overhaul that usurps Congress's policymaking prerogatives—and it is hard to imagine deciding that question in any meaningful way after those changes have happened.

Given the fact-based nature of the issue in this case and the many serious harms that result from allowing the President to dramatically reconfigure the Federal Government, it was eminently reasonable for the District Court to maintain the…

Disillusionment that the majority will ever step up to defend the rule of law.

The court is prejudiced toward the 'moneyed' and 'corporate interests.'

Lower court judges have their fingers on the pulse of what is happening on the ground and are indisputably best positioned to determine the relevant facts.

In my view, this decision is not only truly unfortunate but also hubristic and senseless.

Those plans are not before this Court.

In my view, this was the wrong decision at the wrong moment, especially given what little this Court knows about what is actually happening on the ground.

More caution (and more research) may be warranted before our longstanding precedents in this area can be seriously scrutinized or attacked—especially in cases where no party has made such a claim or presented any such argument.

'Right' is defined to be the just claim, ownership, or lawful title which a person has to anything.

I do not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this court has stayed.