Judges & Justices

Our emergency docket, while fit for some things, should not be used to overrule or revise existing law.

If we want gun manufacturers to pay for gun violence abroad, we need to tell members of Congress to write a different law.

Their rulings and the law as they interpret it, which will surely hasten the downfall of our governing institutions, enabling our collective demise.

Has put both our legal system, and our system of government, in grave jeopardy

Has gifted the Executive with the prerogative of sometimes disregarding the law

Before she became [a Planned Parenthood] patient, Edwards had struggled to find a healthcare provider capable of meeting her needs as a diabetic whose condition heightened the risks associated with pregnancy.

This provision sweeps too broadly, interferes with the party-candidate relationship, and has not been proved necessary to combat corruption.

This Court’s complicity in the creation of a culture of disdain for lower courts, their rulings and the law (as they interpret it) will surely hasten the downfall of our governing institutions, enabling our collective demise.

The court once again 'dons its emergency-responder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them.'

If the idea is to reassure the markets, a simpler — and more judicial — approach would have been to deny the President’s application for a stay.

The consequence of the Supreme Court’s ruling is that only children born in the U.S. to noncitizen parents who have filed separate lawsuits stand a chance of enjoying their constitutional right to birthright citizenship.

With deep disillusionment, I dissent.

Be vigilant against such potential abuses of these tools.

Today’s decision will have very little value if district courts award relief to broadly defined classes without following ‘Rule 23’s procedural protections’ for class certification.

To operate in two different zones moving forward: one in which it is required to follow the law ... and another in which you can choose to violate the law

It would be good if people appreciated it's not the judges' fault that a correct interpretation of the law meant that, no, you don't get to do this.

An existential threat to the rule of law.

At a minimum, it will deprive Medicaid recipients in South Carolina of their only meaningful way of enforcing a right that Congress has expressly granted to them.

Perhaps the degradation of our rule-of-law regime would happen anyway. But this court’s complicity in the creation of a culture of disdain for lower courts, their rulings, and the law (as they interpret it) will surely hasten the downfall…

For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.

I am hopeful that this Court will soon realize that the conflict its §2 jurisprudence has sown with the Constitution is too severe to ignore.

For over three decades, I have called for 'a systematic reassessment of our interpretation of §2.'

These are the only cases argued this Term in which our jurisdiction is mandatory.

Congress requires this Court to exercise jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to congressional redistricting, and we accordingly have an obligation to resolve such challenges promptly.