Judges & Justices

We’re nine independent people.

I think there are different views among members of the court about when to do it and when not.

I think that we should hold ourselves, sort of on both sides, to a standard of explaining why we're doing what we're doing.

I think as we have done more and more on this emergency docket, there becomes a real responsibility that I think we didn't recognize when we first started down this road, to explain things better.

To preserve what I think is the crown jewel of our constitutional democracy, which is the independence of the judiciary.

What is the status of the new regulation or executive order for the next two years?

Executive branches of both parties over the last 20 years have been increasingly trying to issue executive orders and regulations that achieve the policy objectives of the president in power.

So there could be a risk in writing the opinion, of lock-in effect, of making a snap judgment and putting it in writing, in a written opinion that's not going to reflect the final view.

I have a very thick skin.

Perhaps the degradation of our rule-of-law regime would happen anyway.

The threats and harassment are attacks on our democracy, on our system of government.

The attacks are not random. They seem designed to intimidate those of us who serve in this critical capacity.

I have no doubt that, if judges must allow the Executive to act unlawfully in some circumstances, as the Court concludes today, executive lawlessness will flourish.

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