Judges & Justices

I express my deep disillusionment with the court for giving Trump this immense gift.

This decision is an existential threat to democracy and civil rights.

This lawlessness flourishes, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more.

The court has created a zone of lawlessness within which the executive has the prerogative to take or leave the law as it wishes.

One of the projects of the Roberts Court is to undo the progress of the 1960s and make the 19th century great again.

The Court’s decision today is not the first to so weaken the landmark civil rights protections that Congress enacted during the Reconstruction Era.

The Court’s decision to foreclose Medicaid recipients from using §1983 to enforce that provision thwarts Congress’s will twice over.

Today’s decision is likely to result in tangible harm to real people.

[T]he ability to decide who treats us at our most vulnerable.

[T]oday's decision is likely to result in tangible harm to real people.

It’s likely to result in tangible harm to real people.

The majority thwarts Congress’s will twice over: once, in dulling the tool Congress created for enforcing all federal rights, and again in vitiating one of those rights altogether.

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.

[T]he project of stymying one of the country’s great civil rights laws continues.… South Carolina asks us to hollow out [Section 1983] so that the State can evade liability for violating the rights of its Medicaid recipients to choose…

We do have a sense of what comes next: as with those past rulings, today’s decision is likely to result in tangible harm to real people.

It was precisely because the goals of the 1871 Act were so ambitious that those most committed to the structures it targeted, including many in South Carolina, opposed the measure so vehemently.

Impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.

The enterprise around which Gorsuch built his career and reputation is bogus.

Far from being 'insufficiently pliable,' I think pure textualism is incessantly malleable—that’s its primary problem.

Pure textualism’s refusal to try to understand the text of a statute in the larger context of what Congress sought to achieve turns the interpretive task into a potent weapon for advancing judicial policy preferences.

It is precisely because of this solemn duty that, in my view, it is imperative that we interpret statutes consistent with all relevant indicia of what Congress wanted.

Gorsuch’s critique... stems from an unfortunate misunderstanding of the judicial role.

The majority today is wrong as a matter of precedent: This Court has held that the Hobbs Act, like its precursors, sets up a single judicial review mechanism for agency rules and orders, and prevents later collateral attacks on them in…

Today's holding undermines the certainty and finality Congress sought in designing a mechanism for judicial review; it subjects all administrative schemes, and the many businesses and individuals relying on them, to the ever-present risk…