Sonia Sotomayor

Casting aside longstanding precedent, the Court invents a constitutional right to avoid exposure to ‘subtle’ themes ‘contrary to the religious principles’ that parents wish to instill in their children.

Nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the Constitution.

Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship.

Apparently, the court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in farflung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a District Court exceeded its remedial powers.

The Government’s misconduct in this case threatens the rule of law.

The government has made clear in word and deed that it feels itself unconstrained by law, free to deport anyone anywhere without notice or an opportunity to be heard.

The Government thus openly flouted two court orders, including the one from which it now seeks relief.

Given its conduct in these proceedings, the government’s posture resembles that of the arsonist who calls 911 to report firefighters for violating a local noise ordinance.

Each time this Court rewards noncompliance, it further erodes respect for courts and for the rule of law.

This is not the first time the Court closes its eyes to noncompliance, nor, I fear, will it be the last.

The Government has made clear in word and deed that it feels itself unconstrained by law.

Rather than allowing our lower court colleagues to manage this high-stakes litigation with the care and attention it plainly requires, this court now intervenes to grant the government emergency relief from an order it has repeatedly…

The government has made clear in word and deed that it feels itself unconstrained by law, free to deport anyone anywhere without notice or an opportunity to be heard.

Apparently, the court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in farflung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a district court exceeded its remedial powers.

That use of discretion is as incomprehensible as it is inexcusable.

[The court] authorizes, without second thought, untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them.

The court's willingness to do so here does irrevocable damage to the Equal Protection Clause and invites legislatures to engage in discrimination.

in sadness, I dissent.

It also authorizes, without second thought, untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them.

Tennessee’s law expressly classifies on the basis of sex and transgender status, so the Constitution and settled precedent require the court to subject it to intermediate scrutiny.

The court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims.

In sadness, I dissent.

Anyone in search of evidence that transgender people face immense discrimination by the government need only look at what Donald Trump is doing in the present moment.

Transgender adolescents’ access to hormones and puberty blockers (known as gender-affirming care) is not a matter of mere cosmetic preference. To the contrary, access to care can be a question of life or death.

The majority refuses to call a spade a spade.