ReportWire

Tag: Ketanji Brown Jackson

  • Justice Amy Coney Barrett says she has

    [ad_1]

    Washington — Justice Amy Coney Barrett said she sharply responded to a dissenting opinion from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in a recent ruling on nationwide injunctions because Jackson had made a “spirited argument” that “merited a spirited response.”

    Barrett discussed the majority opinion she authored in a conversation with CBS News senior correspondent Norah O’Donnell, her first television interview since joining the Supreme Court in 2020. The justice has written a new book, called “Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution,” that will hit shelves Sept. 9.

    The Supreme Court’s ruling in June limited the ability of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions, which are orders that block enforcement of a policy universally, not just against the plaintiffs in a case. The decision came in a trio of challenges to President Trump’s executive order that seeks to end birthright citizenship.

    The constitutionality of Mr. Trump’s birthright citizenship plan was not before the court, though the justices are likely to be confronted with that question soon.

    The Supreme Court divided 6-3 in the case, with the three liberal justices in dissent. Jackson, the newest member of the court, joined the principle dissenting opinion authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and wrote her own.

    Writing for the majority, Barrett referenced Jackson several times by name. Barrett wrote that her colleague’s “position is difficult to pin down” and “goes far beyond the mainstream defense of universal injunctions.”

    “We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,” Barrett wrote. “We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”

    Asked about her response to Jackson, Barrett said she mentioned her fellow justice by name because she wrote a solo dissent that was not joined by either of the two liberal justices, Sotomayor and Justice Elena Kagan.

    “I did draft the opinion and I think sometimes arguments that are, you know — you match the tone that’s appropriate for the moment,” Barrett said. “And Justice Jackson made a formal, a very — she made a spirited argument, and so I thought it merited a spirited response. But it is about the merits, it was about the case. I have great respect for Justice Jackson.”

    Barrett quoted her former boss, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who was known for his own sharp opinions and who would say “I attack ideas. I don’t attack people.”

    “That is the spirit in which, you know, I write my opinions,” she said.

    Asked if there was any “beef” with Jackson, Barrett replied, “Of course not. No.”

    “One thing I want people to know about the court is that it’s a place where we can have disagreements, but still get along, because we can have disagreements that really are confined to the page, that are confined to cases,” she said. “And so we can debate ideas, sometimes vigorously, as you pointed out, but it doesn’t inhibit us in our ability to be colleagues and friends.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Supreme Court OKs Trump’s cuts to research funding

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — Massachusetts leaders are blasting a U.S. Supreme Court court ruling that will allow the Trump administration to claw back nearly $800 million in federal grants for medical and scientific research, saying the move will hurt patients and institutions who rely on the money for lifesaving work.

    A divided Supreme Court on Thursday issued an unsigned order allowing the National Institutes of Health, the largest public funding source for biomedical research in the world, to terminate federal grants linked to diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.


    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm%96 dc CF=:?8 3J E96 4@FCE’D 4@?D6CG2E:G6 >2;@C:EJ @G6CEFC?65 2 yF?6 564:D:@? 3J &]$] s:DEC:4E r@FCE ;F586 (:==:2> *@F?8 😕 q@DE@? E92E 3=@4<65 E96 42?46==2E:@? @7 E96 8C2?ED 7@C 5:G6CD:EJ :?:E:2E:G6D 2D “G@:5 2?5 :==682=” 3642FD6 E96 492?86D H6C6 32D65 @? 5:D4C:>:?2E:@? 282:?DE C24:2= >:?@C:E:6D 2?5 E96 {vq%”Z 4@>>F?:EJ]k^Am

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • The Best New Memoirs by Women in the U.S. Political Sphere

    The Best New Memoirs by Women in the U.S. Political Sphere

    [ad_1]

    These are some of the best political memoirs of 2024. Courtesy the publishers

    Women are climbing the ranks in American politics, from state positions to national offices—and in the case of Kamala Harris, holding the second-highest office as Vice President while campaigning for the U.S. presidency. Yet even as women make inroads at all levels, the political climate has grown more and more polarized, and the public discourse on power, policy and representation increasingly revolves around issues of gender. As a result, many high-profile women in politics have, in recent years, been inspired to share their stories in print, sparking an interest in books highlighting resilience in leadership, particularly from women who have overcome systemic barriers to attain influential positions.

    Most recently, a new crop of biographies and memoirs by leaders like Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have pulled back the curtain on not only powerful women’s political perspectives and decision-making processes but also their personal lives. The six recently published memoirs we’ve chosen to feature here highlight these leaders’ unique contributions to governance and American culture while offering an insider’s view of pivotal national events. They’re not always easy reads, but they’re all worth reading.

    The Art of Power: My Story as America’s First Woman Speaker of the House by Nancy Pelosi

    A book covering featuring a shot of a woman from the back as seen looking out over the presidential mallA book covering featuring a shot of a woman from the back as seen looking out over the presidential mall
    The Art of Power: My Story as America’s First Woman Speaker of the House by Nancy Pelosi. Simon & Schuster

    Nothing could have prepared Nancy Pelosi, 84, for the 2022 attack on her husband, Paul, at their San Francisco home. She opens her second book—her first, Know Your Power: A Message to America’s Daughters, was published in 2008—by recounting this traumatic incident that shook her family’s sense of security. She writes that Paul, still unable to speak about it, bears the scars of that night both emotionally and physically. Pelosi’s commitment to and fight for democracy began in an era when few women held political office. Since then, she has been re-elected to the House eighteen times and served as the first female Speaker of the House from 2007 to 2011 and again from 2019 to 2023. Throughout her career, she has consistently prioritized children and their futures, describing them as the cornerstone of her platform and the guiding lens for her political decisions, a theme she expands on in her latest book.

    Something Lost, Something Gained: Reflections on Life, Love and Liberty by Hillary Rodham Clinton

    A book cover featuring a blonde woman in a green button down shirt staring forwardA book cover featuring a blonde woman in a green button down shirt staring forward
    Something Lost, Something Gained: Reflections on Life, Love and Liberty by Hillary Rodham Clinton. Simon & Schuster

    In her latest book, former First Lady and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton took her editor’s advice to heart: to write as though she’s chatting with guests at a dinner party, blending political and personal stories. Each chapter reads like an essay, offering deep insights into her life beyond politics, including her close friendship with Canadian mystery novelist Louise Penny, her admiration for Joni Mitchell and the loyalty of her grade-school friends. Yet Clinton also writes about her efforts to help evacuate Afghan women to safety and describes the routine she and her husband, Bill, maintain, checking in with each other at the end of each day no matter where they are in the world. And she definitely doesn’t shy away from addressing her 2016 presidential election loss to Donald Trump or his persistent claims that the 2020 election was stolen. “Every day, I make an effort to turn my eyes to the future instead,” she reflects.

    SEE ALSO: The 10 Best Books With Badass Older Heroines

    Melania: A Memoir by Melania Trump

    A black book cover featuring the word Melania, all in uppercase, in whiteA black book cover featuring the word Melania, all in uppercase, in white
    Melania: A Memoir by Melania Trump. Skyhorse

    With just days remaining before the upcoming presidential election, former First Lady Trump has largely stayed out of the public eye. True to form, those hoping her book will offer insights into her politics may be disappointed—this quick read reveals little about her personal politics beyond her support for abortion rights and her opposition to the violence of the January 6 Capitol Riots. In this straightforward memoir, she reflects on her Slovenian upbringing, life in the spotlight, her relationship with Donald, her fashion career, the joy of motherhood and her advocacy work. She also discusses her entrepreneurial ventures, such as her jewelry line and skincare brand, and the pride she took in building her own career apart from her husband, even as her projects encountered setbacks. The publisher billed Melania Trump’s memoir as “an in-depth account of a woman who has led a remarkable life on her own terms,” and in that regard, it certainly delivers.

    Oath and Honor: A Memoir and a Warning by Liz Cheney 

    A book cover featuring a serious looking women in glasses gazing off to the sideA book cover featuring a serious looking women in glasses gazing off to the side
    Oath and Honor: A Memoir and a Warning by Liz Cheney. Little, Brown and Company

    Cheney’s sharply focused book addresses her decision to be one of only ten Republicans (and the third-highest-ranking Republican in the House) to vote for Trump’s impeachment following the January 6 insurrection in 2021. This action led to her removal as chair of the House Republican Conference. Her appointment by Speaker Pelosi to the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol provided her with a direct avenue to share her account. The book’s title references the oath every elected official, including the President, swears, pledging allegiance to the Constitution above party loyalty. Cheney clarifies the “warning” in her subtitle on the last page of the prologue: “We cannot make the grave mistake of returning Donald Trump—the man who caused Jan. 6—to the White House, or to any position of public trust, ever again.”

    Lovely One: A Memoir by Ketanji Brown Jackson

    A book cover featuring a smiling women in a yellow blazer looking off to the sideA book cover featuring a smiling women in a yellow blazer looking off to the side
    Lovely One: A Memoir by Ketanji Brown Jackson. Penguin Random House

    When President Biden appointed Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court in 2022, it marked a historic milestone: she became the first Black woman to serve on the highest court in the United States. Jackson opens her memoir with that pivotal scene, describing the moment she’s ushered into the room to take her oath, before moving into the story of her parents’ and grandparents’ struggles with segregation. Her Miami childhood is marked by hope and more opportunity than her forebears knew, as her parents work tirelessly to support her success. But Ketanji is already a bright, curious and reflective child—qualities that will carry her through Harvard, into motherhood and marriage, and ultimately to the Supreme Court. Her name, translated by her aunt, a Peace Corps volunteer in West Africa, means “lovely one,” which inspired the memoir’s title.

    The Joy of Politics: Surviving Cancer, a Campaign, a Pandemic, an Insurrection, and Life’s Other Unexpected Curveballs by Amy Klobuchar

    A book cover featuring a smiling women in an orange jacket celebrating with her arms raised in joyA book cover featuring a smiling women in an orange jacket celebrating with her arms raised in joy
    The Joy of Politics: Surviving Cancer, a Campaign, a Pandemic, an Insurrection, and Life’s Other Unexpected Curveballs by Amy Klobuchar. Macmillan

    Minnesota-born U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar gained national prominence as a Democratic contender in the 2020 presidential race. Her journey since then has been a whirlwind both publicly and personally: she stood alongside former Vice President Mike Pence on the night of January 6, as he certified President Biden’s victory amidst the insurrection, and in her personal life, she faced the loss of her father to Alzheimer’s, her husband’s COVID-19 hospitalization and oxygen support, and her own cancer diagnosis. Klobuchar’s humor and grounded personality shine through in her fourth book, starting with a lighthearted moment in the opening paragraph where her husband jokes about his “long-haul symptom”—his desire to avoid cleaning out the basement yet again—showcasing her resilience and strength.

    The Best New Memoirs by Women in the U.S. Political Sphere

    [ad_2]

    Kristine Hansen

    Source link

  • ‘Representation Matters’: White House hosts Celebration of Black Excellence Brunch on South Lawn

    ‘Representation Matters’: White House hosts Celebration of Black Excellence Brunch on South Lawn

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – The St. Augustine Gospel Choir was dressed in black robes with green and red stripes down the right side. Established in 1977, the world-renowned choir didn’t have to make too long of a trip to the White House balcony overlooking the South Lawn. St. Augustine Catholic Church is located on V Street, NW, just a couple miles away from the White House.

    The first-ever Celebration of Black Excellence brought hundreds of Black leaders of many different industries to the White House on Friday, Sept. 13, 2024. Photo by Donnell Suggs/The Atlanta Voice

    The White House was the scene for a Celebration of Black Excellence Brunch, which took place on Friday, Sept. 13, and brought actors, actresses, authors, television personalities, journalists, writers, activists, and artists to the South Lawn. Friday was the first time a celebration of this order exclusively to celebrate the greatness of Black Americans took place on White House grounds. This wasn’t Black History Month or Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, or even Juneteenth, it is a moment of history in the making, according to United States President Joseph R. Biden.

    “The Black community has always had my back and I have always had theirs,” said Biden, who was dressed in his signature navy blue suit and aviator shades. Chants of “Thank you, Joe” filled the air as Biden thanked the large crowd for coming to the brunch and for contributing to America’s greatness. During his 15-minute speech, Biden made sure to let everyone know that this current administration that he shares with Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee for the presidency, is the most diverse in the country’s history.

    Biden was joined by Shalanda Young, the Director of the United States Office of Management and Budget. Young is the first Black woman to hold her position. Under the Biden-Harris administration Black excellence isn’t new as the first Black female Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black Vice President, and the first Black female queer White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre were able to break down walls to their respective offices of national power and prominence. Biden was sure to mention that he was also the Vice President under the first Black man to hold the office of the presidency, Barack Obama. 

    “Today we are here to honor this truth that Black history is American history and Black excellence is American excellence,” said Biden. 

    Jean-Pierre, a Haitian-American, spoke moments before Biden appeared and stated that there were “Hundreds of Black leaders on the South Lawn of the White House who exemplify Black excellence,” and that was because of the Biden-Harris administration’s support of Black Americans at the White House and beyond. 

    Young added that she hopes her three-year-old daughter Charlie has fond memories of walking around the White House where her mother works.

    “I’m incredibly proud to work for President Biden and Vice President Harris, who have worked hard to fight for families,” said Young, who shared a story of Biden telling her it’s OK to go home during an important meeting in order to pick Charlie up from daycare. 

    Senator Rev. Raphael Warnock (Ga.).
    Photo by Donnell Suggs/The Atlanta Voice

    Guests to the brunch included inspirational speaker Iyanla Vanzant, actor Anthony Anderson, rapper David Banner, actresses Marsai Martin and Kyla Pratt, journalist April D. Ryan, and Black politicians and civic leaders from across the country, including Jonesboro (Ga.) Mayor Dr. Donya L. Sartor, Georgia Senator Rev. Raphael Warnock, and Rep. Gregory Meeks (N.Y.), and Minority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives Hakeem Jeffries, to name a few. 

    “Well, representation matters, it impacts policy,” said Warnock. “We see this played out in this administration in terms of policy. “I certainly like what this administration and its agenda represents for 2025 versus Project 2025. That is a contrast we have to keep in mind as we go into this election.”

    Warnock pointed out that under the Biden-Harris administration Black unemployment is down, investments in Black-owned businesses are up, Black household wealth is up even when you allow for inflation, and there has been a record set for investment in Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).

    “This is the work that we continue to do and we can ill afford to have someone take us back. We have to move forward,” Warnock said.

    Long-time White House correspondent April D. Rayn. Photo by Donnell Suggs/The Atlanta Voice

    Meeks also believes representation matters and added, “Representation is not everything, it’s the only thing,” he said. “Trying to move forward without the appropriate representation, you can’t gain or get anything. When you’re talking about health, cost and representation matters. If you talk about affordable housing, representation matters. If you’re talking about reducing or getting relief from student loans, representation matters. Individuals have to have someone who represents them in the hall of government so that you can negotiate and create opportunities that better the lives of individuals that we represent.”

    Having covered the White House for decades, Ryan said she knows how much representation matters inside the gates at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. 

    City of Jonesboro (Ga.) Mayor Dr. Donya L. Sartor. Photo by Donnell Suggs/The Atlanta Voice

    “It’s important that everyone matters. It is important in this moment when there is a presidential candidate that clearly deals with race on a whole other level that they see Black people who are not eating dogs and cats,” said Ryan. “It’s important that they see Black people who rise above. It’s important that America sees that we are not the picture that they want to paint. This is that moment.”  

    Looking around at all of the Black people in all-white outfits mingling, laughing, and talking, Sartor, the first Black Mayor of Jonesboro, said, “For some people, there is a conditioning process. They are not used to seeing us in positions like this. Representation matters and President Biden and Vice President Harris are creating a norm.

    [ad_2]

    Donnell Suggs

    Source link

  • Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson on journey to Supreme Court

    Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson on journey to Supreme Court

    [ad_1]

    Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson on journey to Supreme Court – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Ahead of the release of her new book, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared on “CBS Sunday Morning” in her first broadcast interview since joining the high court. The rest of the interview will stream Thursday night on “Person to Person with Norah O’Donnell.”

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Idaho’s ban on youth gender-affirming care has families desperately scrambling for solutions

    Idaho’s ban on youth gender-affirming care has families desperately scrambling for solutions

    [ad_1]

    Forced to hide her true self, Joe Horras’ transgender daughter struggled with depression and anxiety until three years ago, when she began to take medication to block the onset of puberty. The gender-affirming treatment helped the now-16-year-old find happiness again, her father said.

    A decision by the U.S. Supreme Court late Monday allowing Idaho to enforce its ban on such care for minors could jeopardize her wellbeing once again. Horras is scrambling to figure out next steps and is considering leaving Idaho, where he’s lived his whole life, to move to another state.

    “It would be devastating for her,” Horras, who lives in Boise, told The Associated Press. “If she doesn’t have access to that, it will damage her mental health.”

    Horras is among the Idaho parents desperate to find solutions after their trans children lost access to the gender-affirming care they were receiving. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision allows the state to put in place a 2023 law that subjects physicians to up to 10 years in prison if they provide hormones, puberty blockers or other gender-affirming care to people under age 18. A federal judge in Idaho had previously blocked the law in its entirety.

    The ruling will hold while lawsuits against the law proceed through the lower courts, although the two transgender teens who sued to challenge the law will still be able to obtain care.

    At least 24 states have adopted bans on gender-affirming care for minors in recent years, and most of them face legal challenges. Twenty other states are currently enforcing the bans.

    Monday’s ruling was the first time the U.S. Supreme Court waded into the issue. The court’s 6-3 ruling steered clear of whether the ban itself is constitutional. Instead, the justices went deep into whether it’s appropriate to put enforcement of a law on hold for everyone, or just those who sue over it, while it works its way through the courts.

    In his concurring opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch said “lower courts would be wise to take heed” and limit use of “universal injunctions” blocking all enforcement of laws that face legal challenges. In a dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the court should not decide the fate of those actions without reading legal briefs and hearing arguments on the issue.

    Rights groups in Idaho are supporting families to make sure they’re aware the measure has taken effect. The American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho said it plans to hold a virtual event over Zoom with licensed counselors and legal experts to help people process the shock and answer any questions they may have about the law.

    “Yesterday was really just an outpouring of fear, questions, people trying to figure out how this is going to affect them personally,” said Jenna Damron, the group’s advocacy fellow. “Getting information out quickly that is accurate is kind of our first priority.”

    Paul Southwick, legal director for ACLU of Idaho, said the group wants families to know what their options are.

    “Gender-affirming medical care is now immediately illegal for minors in the state of Idaho. However, care remains legal for adults, and it’s also legal for minors to seek gender-affirming medical care out of state,” he said.

    In Boise, Horras’ 16-year-old daughter wears an estrogen patch and receives estrogen injections every six months. Her last shot was in December and Horras now has two months to find a new out-of-state provider who can continue administering the medication. The situation has left him feeling scared, he said, and angry toward the state politicians who passed the law last year.

    “It’s cruel,” he said.

    Advocates, meanwhile, worry that lower-income families won’t be able to afford to travel across state lines for care. Arya Shae Walker, a transgender man and activist in the small city of Twin Falls in rural southern Idaho, said he was concerned that people would alter the doses of their current prescriptions in order to make them last longer. His advocacy group has already taken down information on its website on gender-affirming care providers for young people in the area out of concern of potential legal consequences.

    The broader issue of bans on gender-affirming care for minors could eventually be before the U.S. Supreme Court again. Last year, a ban on gender-affirming care for minors in Arkansas was shot down by a federal judge, while those in Kentucky and Tennessee were allowed to be enforced by an appeals court after being put on hold by lower-court judges. Montana’s law is not being enforced because of a ruling from a state judge.

    Laws barring transgender youth from playing on sports teams that align with their gender identity are also being challenged across the country. An appeals court on Tuesday ruled that West Virginia’s transgender sports ban violates the rights of a teen athlete under Title IX, the federal civil rights law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in schools. Hours later, an Ohio law that bars transgender girls from girls scholastic sports competitions was put on hold by a judge. Set to take effect next week, the law also bans gender-affirming care for transgender youth.

    Those who support the bans say they want to protect children and have concerns about the treatments themselves.

    Gender-affirming care for youth is supported by major medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychiatric Association. However, England is limiting the ability of people younger than 16 to begin a medical gender transition.

    The National Health Service England recently cemented a policy first issued on an interim basis almost a year ago that sets a minimum age at which puberty blockers can be started, along with other requirements. NHS England says there is not enough evidence about their long-term effects, including “sexual, cognitive or broader developmental outcomes.”

    Medical professionals define gender dysphoria as psychological distress experienced by those whose gender expression does not match their gender identity. Experts say gender-affirming therapy can lead to lower rates of depression, suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts among transgender people.

    Chelsea Gaona-Lincoln, executive director of Idaho-based advocacy group Add The Words, said she’s anticipating “a pretty horrendous ripple effect.” But seeing her community uniting in support has given her a glimmer of hope.

    “There are people coming together, and it’s so important, for especially our youth, to feel seen and affirmed as they are,” she said.

    Southwick, the legal director of ACLU of Idaho, said the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to hold a hearing this summer on its lawsuit challenging the law.

    ___

    Associated Press writer Geoff Mulvihill in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, contributed.

    Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

    [ad_2]

    Claire Rush, Associated Press

    Source link

  • In 370 days, Supreme Court conservatives dash decades of abortion and affirmative action precedents

    In 370 days, Supreme Court conservatives dash decades of abortion and affirmative action precedents

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Overturning Roe v. Wade and eliminating affirmative action in higher education had been leading goals of the conservative legal movement for decades.

    In a span of 370 days, a Supreme Court reshaped by three justices nominated by President Donald Trump made both a reality.

    Last June, the court ended nationwide protections for abortion rights. This past week, the court’s conservative majority decided that race-conscious admissions programs at the oldest private and public colleges in the country, Harvard and the University of North Carolina, were unlawful.

    Asian shares are mostly higher after a rally on Wall Street driven by reports that showed inflation abating, alleviating fears over the threat of a recession.

    A much-feared backup of U.S. passport applications has snarled summer plans for would-be travelers around the world.

    The United Nations body that regulates the world’s ocean floor is preparing to resume negotiations that could open the international seabed for mining, including for materials vital for the green energy transition.

    Nearly six months after the Democratic Party approved Biden’s plan to overhaul which states lead off its presidential primary, implementing the revamped order has proven anything but simple.

    Precedents that had stood since the 1970s were overturned, explicitly in the case of abortion and effectively in the affirmative action context.

    “That is what is notable about this court. It’s making huge changes in highly salient areas in a very short period of time,” said Tara Leigh Grove, a law professor at the University of Texas.

    As ethical questions swirled around the court and public trust in the institution had already dipped to a 50-year low, there were other consequential decisions in which the six conservatives prevailed.

    They rejected the Biden administration’s $400 billion student loan forgiveness program and held that a Christian graphic artist can refuse on free speech grounds to design websites for same-sex couples, despite a Colorado law that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation and other characteristics.

    The court, by a 5-4 vote, also sharply limited the federal government’s authority to police water pollution into certain wetlands, although all nine justices rejected the administration’s position.

    Affirmative action was arguably the biggest constitutional decision of the year, and it showcased fiercely opposing opinions from the court’s two Black justices, Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

    They offered sharply contrasting takes on affirmative action. Thomas was in the majority to end it. Jackson, in her first year on the court, was in dissent.

    The past year also had a number of notable surprises.

    Differing coalitions of conservative and liberal justices ruled in favor of Black voters in an Alabama redistricting case and refused to embrace broad arguments in a North Carolina redistricting case that could have left state legislatures unchecked and dramatically altered elections for Congress and president.

    The court also ruled for the Biden administration in a fight over deportation priorities and left in place the Indian Child Welfare Act, the federal law aimed at keeping Native American children with Native families.

    Those cases reflected the control that Chief Justice John Roberts asserted, or perhaps reasserted, over the court following a year in which the other five conservatives moved more quickly than he wanted in some areas, including abortion.

    Roberts wrote a disproportionate share of the term’s biggest cases: conservative outcomes on affirmative action and the student loan plan, and liberal victories in Alabama and North Carolina.

    The Alabama case may have been the most surprising because Roberts had consistently sought to narrow the landmark Voting Rights Act since his days as a young lawyer in the Reagan administration. As chief justice, he wrote the decision 10 years ago that gutted a key provision of the law.

    But in the Alabama case and elsewhere, Roberts was part of majorities that rejected the most aggressive legal arguments put forth by Republican elected officials and conservative legal advocates.

    The mixed bag of decisions almost seemed designed to counter arguments about the court’s legitimacy, raised by Democratic and liberal critics — and some justices — in response to last year’s abortion ruling, among others. The narrative was amplified by published reports of undisclosed, paid jet travel and fancy trips for Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito from billionaire Republican donors.

    “I don’t think the court consciously takes opinion into account,” Grove said. “But I think if there’s anyone who might consciously think about these issues, it’s the institutionalist, the chief justice. He’s been extremely concerned about the attacks on the Supreme Court.”

    On the term’s final day, Roberts urged the public to not mistake disagreement among the justices for disparagement of the court. “Any such misperception would be harmful to this institution and our country,” he wrote in the student loans case in response to a stinging dissent by Justice Elena Kagan.

    Roberts has resisted instituting a code of ethics for the court and has questioned whether Congress has the authority to impose one. Still, he has said, without providing specifics, that the justices would do more to show they adhere to high ethical standards.

    Some conservative law professors rejected the idea that the court bowed to outside pressures, consciously or otherwise.

    “There were a lot of external atmospherics that really could have affected court business, but didn’t,” said Jennifer Mascott, a George Mason University law professor.

    Curt Levey, president of the Committee for Justice, pointed to roughly equal numbers of major decisions that could be characterized as politically liberal or conservative.

    Levey said conservatives “were not disappointed by this term.” Democrats and their allies “warned the nation about an ideologically extreme Supreme Court but wound up cheering as many major decisions as they decried,” Levey wrote in an email.

    But some liberal critics were not mollified.

    Brian Fallon, director of the court reform group Demand Justice, called the past year “another disastrous Supreme Court term” and mocked experts who “squint to find so-called silver linings in the Court’s decisions to suggest all is not lost, or they will emphasize one or two so-called moderate decisions from the term to suggest the Court is not as extreme as we think and can still be persuaded from time to time.”

    Biden himself said on MSNBC on Thursday that the current court has “done more to unravel basic rights and basic decisions than any court in recent history.” He cited as examples the overturning of abortion protections and other decisions that had been precedent for decades.

    Still, Biden said, he thought some on the high court “are beginning to realize their legitimacy is being questioned in ways it hasn’t been questioned in the past.”

    The justices are now embarking on a long summer break. They return to the bench on the first Monday in October for a term that so far appears to lack the blockbuster cases that made the past two terms so momentous.

    The court will examine the legal fallout from last year’s major expansion of gun rights, in a case over a domestic violence gun ban that was struck down by a lower court.

    A new legal battle over abortion also could make its way to the court in coming months. In April, the court preserved access to mifepristone, a drug used in the most common method of abortion, while a lawsuit over it makes its way through federal court.

    The conservative majority also will have opportunities to further constrain federal regulatory agencies, including a case that asks them to overturn the so-called Chevron decision that defers to regulators when they seek to give effect to big-picture, sometimes vague, laws written by Congress. The 1984 decision has been cited by judges more than 15,000 times.

    Just seven years ago, months before Trump’s surprising presidential victory, then-Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg reflected on the term that had just ended and made two predictions. One was way off base and the other was strikingly accurate.

    In July 2016, the court had just ended a term in which the justices upheld a University of Texas affirmative action plan and struck down state restrictions on abortion clinics.

    Her first prediction was that those issues would not soon return to the high court. Her second was that if Trump became president, “everything is up for grabs.”

    Ginsburg’s death in 2020 allowed Trump to put Justice Amy Coney Barrett on the court and cement conservative control.

    Commenting on the student loan decision, liberal legal scholar Melissa Murray wrote on Twitter that Biden’s plan “was absolutely undone by the Court that his predecessor built.”

    ___

    Follow the AP’s coverage of the Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How did each Supreme Court justice vote in today’s student loan forgiveness ruling? Here’s a breakdown

    How did each Supreme Court justice vote in today’s student loan forgiveness ruling? Here’s a breakdown

    [ad_1]

    The Supreme Court decided 6-3 that the Biden administration does not have the authority to wipe out nearly half-a-trillion dollars in student debt.

    The decision denies relief to about 40 million Americans who stood to have up to $20,000 in student debt erased by the plan using the HEROES Act. 

    There were actually two student loan forgiveness decisions made on Friday: The first was about whether two private citizens had the right to challenge the plan. The court unanimously said that the pair did not have standing, and their challenge was thrown out. 

    However, in the case where the decision to strike down the forgiveness plan was made, the court said that Missouri — one of six states that challenged the plan — did have legal standing. This allowed the court to consider whether the secretary of education could use the HEROES Act to forgive student loan debt. 

    Here’s how the court voted on that case. 

    Supreme Court justices who voted against student loan forgiveness

    The Supreme Court’s decision fell along ideological lines, much like Thursday’s decision to end race-based affirmative action

    Chief Justice John Roberts voted against the student loan forgiveness plan and delivered the majority opinion, saying that U.S. Education Secretary Miguel Cardona has the authority to “waive or modify” the HEROES Act, but not “rewrite that statute from the ground up.” 

    “The Secretary’s comprehensive debt cancellation plan cannot fairly be called a waiver—it not only nullifies existing provisions, but augments and expands them dramatically. It cannot be mere modification, because it constitutes ‘effectively the introduction of a whole new regime,’” Roberts wrote. 

    Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett voted with Roberts.

    Barrett filed a concurring opinion, writing that the court “can uphold the Secretary of Education’s loan cancellation program only if he points to ‘clear congressional authorization’ for it.” 

    Supreme Court justices who voted to uphold student loan forgiveness

    The court’s three liberal voices — Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson — all opposed the decision. Kagan filed a dissent where she called the decision to take up the case, let alone vote on it, an “overreach.” 

    “The plaintiffs in this case are six States that have no personal stake in the Secretary’s loan forgiveness plan,” Kagan wrote. “They are classic ideological plaintiffs: They think the plan a very bad idea, but they are no worse off because the Secretary differs. In giving those States a forum — in adjudicating their complaint — the Court forgets its proper role. The Court acts as though it is an arbiter of political and policy disputes, rather than of cases and controversies.”

    In the dissent, Kagan wrote that Cardona acted within the “broad authority” provided by the HEROES Act, saying that the decision to alter usual rules “fits comfortably within” the parameters set by the statute. 

    Melissa Quinn contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Justices Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Brown Jackson criticize each other in unusually sharp language in affirmative action case | CNN Politics

    Justices Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Brown Jackson criticize each other in unusually sharp language in affirmative action case | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling Thursday on affirmative action pitted its two Black justices against each other, with the ideologically opposed jurists employing unusually sharp language attacking each other by name.

    The majority opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts said colleges and universities can no longer take race into consideration as a specific basis for granting admission, saying programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina violated the Equal Protection Clause because they failed to offer “measurable” objectives to justify the use of race.

    Justice Clarence Thomas and the court’s other four conservatives joined Roberts’ opinion. But Thomas, who in 1991 became the second Black person to ascend to the nation’s highest court, issued a lengthy concurrence that attacked such admissions programs and tore into arguments posited by liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman to join the court, who penned her own fiery dissent in the case.

    Thomas has previously acknowledged that he made it to Yale Law School because of affirmative action, but he has long criticized such policies. He spoke in personal terms in his concurrence as he put forth his argument against the use of the policies, which he described as “rudderless, race-based preferences designed to ensure a particular racial mix in their entering classes.”

    “Even in the segregated South where I grew up, individuals were not the sum of their skin color,” Thomas wrote.

    “While I am painfully aware of the social and economic ravages which have befallen my race and all who suffer discrimination,” he added, “I hold out enduring hope that this country will live up to its principles so clearly enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States: that all men are created equal, are equal citizens, and must be treated equally before the law.”

    As he read his concurrence from the bench on Thursday, Jackson, who joined the court last year, stared blankly ahead. Though Justice Sonia Sotomayor read her dissent from the bench, Jackson did not read her own dissent, in which she went after Thomas’ concurrence and accused the majority of having a “let-them-eat-cake obliviousness” in how the ruling announced “‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat.”

    A footnote near the end of Jackson’s dissent went after the concurrence by Thomas, with the liberal justice accusing her colleague of demonstrating “an obsession with race consciousness that far outstrips my or UNC’s holistic understanding that race can be a factor that affects applicants’ unique life experiences.”

    “Justice Thomas ignites too many more straw men to list, or fully extinguish, here,” Jackson wrote. “The takeaway is that those who demand that no one think about race (a classic pink-elephant paradox) refuse to see, much less solve for, the elephant in the room – the race-linked disparities that continue to impede achievement of our great Nation’s full potential.”

    In her broader dissent, Jackson said that the argument made by the challengers that affirmative action programs are unfair “blinks both history and reality in ways too numerous to count.”

    “But the response is simple: Our country has never been colorblind,” Jackson said.

    (While Jackson recused herself from the Harvard case, she did hear the UNC case, and her dissent was focused on the latter.)

    Thomas then explicitly attacks Jackson’s opinion.

    “As she sees things, we are all inexorably trapped in a fundamentally racist society, with the original sin of slavery and the historical subjugation of black Americans still determining our lives today,” Thomas wrote.

    “Worse still, Justice Jackson uses her broad observations about statistical relationships between race and select measures of health, wealth, and well-being to label all blacks as victims,” Thomas wrote at another point in his concurrence. “Her desire to do so is unfathomable to me.”

    ‘You don’t have to be perfect’: Watch Judge Jackson’s emotional message to her girls

    Thomas, one of the court’s most conservative members, has long been known for his distaste for affirmative action policies. He has been open about the fact that he made it to Yale because of affirmative action, but says the stigma of preferential treatment made it difficult for him to find a job after college.

    In his memoir, “My Grandfather’s Son,” Thomas says he felt “tricked” by paternalistic Whites at Yale who recruited Black students.

    “After graduating from Yale, I met a black alumnus of the University of Michigan Law School who told me that he’d made a point of not mentioning his race on his application. I wished with all my heart that I’d done the same,” he wrote.

    “I learned the hard way that a law degree from Yale meant one thing for White graduates and another for blacks, no matter how much anyone denied it,” Thomas wrote. “As a symbol of my disillusionment, I peeled a fifteen-cent price sticker off a package of cigars and stuck it one the frame of my law degree to remind myself of the mistake I’d made by going to Yale.”

    He dissented in the 2003 case Grutter v. Bollinger, which allowed for the limited use of race in college admissions.

    “I believe blacks can achieve in every avenue of American life without the meddling of university administrators,” he wrote in his dissent.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Paige Herwig, Biden’s Point Person On Judicial Nominations, Is Leaving The White House

    Paige Herwig, Biden’s Point Person On Judicial Nominations, Is Leaving The White House

    [ad_1]

    White House senior counsel Paige Herwig, who has been a driving force behind President Joe Biden’s success in diversifying the nation’s federal courts, is leaving her post.

    Herwig is headed to another role in the administration, HuffPost has learned. She will be making the move in the next several weeks.

    Herwig has been in the counsel’s office since day one of Biden’s presidency, making her the longest-serving team leader there. She’s a big reason why Biden’s judicial nominations are among his signature accomplishments. She’s been overseeing the White House’s aggressive strategy for selecting, nominating and confirming his judges.

    The president has confirmed 126 people to lifetime federal judgeships during his tenure, which is more than his three predecessors — Donald Trump (104), Barack Obama (83) and George W. Bush (124) — had confirmed by this point in their presidencies.

    This includes 93 district court judges, 32 appeals court judges and one Supreme Court justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson.

    “Paige is a phenomenal lawyer, leader, and person, who led the nominations team in Counsel’s Office with the utmost grace and skill,” said former White House counsel Dana Remus, who served with Herwig for most of her tenure.

    Beyond sheer numbers, Biden has infused badly needed diversity onto the nation’s mostly white, mostly male federal bench. Sixty-six percent of his nominees are women, and 70% of the judges who have been confirmed are women. Sixty-five percent of his nominees are people of color, and 64% of the judges that have been confirmed are people of color.

    “Paige is the unsung hero of one of the administration’s most critical achievements — appointing a record number of federal judges with record diversity by race and gender and professional experience,” said former White House chief of staff Ron Klain, who also served with Herwig for most of her tenure. “None of this would have happened without Paige’s legal acumen and legislative savvy.”

    Herwig’s legwork has also led to a number of historic firsts in terms of who Biden has put onto the courts. These include the first Muslim American federal judge, the first two openly LGBTQ women to serve as U.S. circuit court judges, a spike in Hispanic and Asian American representation on the courts, and 12 Black women being confirmed as circuit court judges ― more than all past presidents combined.

    That’s in addition to Biden confirming a record number of public defenders to circuit court seats, a shift from the more traditional corporate lawyers tapped for these jobs.

    When the history books are written, Biden will get credit for putting these people into lifetime seats on the federal bench. Democrats may get a footnote for confirming them in the Senate. Herwig probably won’t be mentioned at all. But she’s been leading the behind-the-scenes work of picking and vetting all of them in the first place, and lining up public support for these people so they’ll have a (hopefully) smooth path ahead in the Senate from the moment the president makes their nominations official.

    “Paige is equal parts brilliant and relentless,” said White House chief of staff Jeff Zients.

    “From day one of the Biden-Harris transition, Paige crafted an aggressive strategy to confirm the most diverse and impressive judicial nominees in history,” he continued, referring to Vice President Kamala Harris.

    Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson gives remarks at the White House after being confirmed to her historic seat in 2022. She gave a shoutout to Paige Herwig, who helped navigate her nomination to Senate confirmation.

    Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

    Progressives hailed Biden when he tapped Herwig for the role in January 2021, namely because she is one of them and they know Herwig from her previous jobs.

    In addition to serving on the Biden-Harris transition team, Herwig was chief nominations counsel for Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) when she was the Senate Judiciary Committee’s ranking member. Herwig was also counselor to former U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch and special assistant to Obama, focused on judicial nominations.

    Prior to those jobs, Herwig was chief of staff and senior counsel at the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Policy during the Obama administration. She also served as deputy chief counsel for Demand Justice, a progressive judicial advocacy group.

    When Biden unveiled his first, much-anticipated batch of judicial nominations in March 2021, Herwig and her team were the ones who spent months pulling that group together. The batch included the highest number of Black female circuit court nominees ever put forward at once (three), and a mix of professionally and demographically diverse picks from New Jersey, Maryland, Colorado and New Mexico.

    Herwig was also key in ushering Jackson’s Supreme Court nomination through the Senate in 2022. She sat in the Senate balcony during the confirmation vote, and when Jackson made remarks on the White House South Lawn a few days later, she gave a specific shoutout to Herwig.

    “I am … particularly grateful for the awe-inspiring leadership of White House Counsel Dana Remus. Of Paige Herwig,” Jackson said to applause. “Where is Paige?”

    Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is under pressure from progressive groups to drop the so-called blue slip rule, which Republicans have been using to essentially sink Joe Biden's judicial nominees in the committee.
    Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is under pressure from progressive groups to drop the so-called blue slip rule, which Republicans have been using to essentially sink Joe Biden’s judicial nominees in the committee.

    Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

    Herwig’s departure comes at a pivotal moment for Biden’s judicial nominations.

    The White House has spent the past two years focused largely on filling court vacancies in states led by Democratic senators, which has made it easier to select and confirm nominees supported by everyone. But now, with vacancies building up in states led by Republican senators, it’s not as simple to nominate people who everyone can agree on. Some GOP senators may not want to help the White House pick anyone, hoping to hold out for a future Republican president who will go with more conservative candidates.

    Beyond that, Republicans have been taking advantage of a courtesy in the Senate Judiciary Committee to block Biden’s court picks. The courtesy, known as the “blue slip rule,” asks that a senator turn in a blue slip of paper as a show of support for advancing a judicial nominee from that senator’s home state. If both of a nominee’s home-state senators turn in their blue slips, they get a hearing. If only one turns in a blue slip, or neither does, the nominee doesn’t get a hearing.

    Republicans haven’t been turning in blue slips for many of Biden’s court picks, effectively killing their nominations. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the chair of the committee, noted in a recent hearing that Democrats had turned in 110 blue slips during the Trump administration. So far in the Biden administration, Republicans have signed 17.

    Some Republicans appear to be refusing to work with the White House at all to fill court vacancies in their states. A recent letter from progressive groups to Durbin indicates that out of 45 current district court vacancies subject to GOP blue slips, 41 don’t have nominees in the queue.

    It’s on Durbin to decide whether to keep the blue slip rule in place. Progressive groups have been pressuring him to drop it so Biden’s court picks can get moving again, but so far he’s held firm in keeping the tradition. The White House counsel’s office doesn’t have any control over this, and it’s not about to pressure Durbin to drop the blue slip rule. But the logjam certainly puts pressure on the White House to cut deals with GOP senators so judicial nominees from their states will have their support from the start, versus nominating people that Republicans may not like and watching them get jammed in the committee.

    The White House counsel’s office will have to navigate all of these dynamics without Herwig. White House counsel Stuart Delery said her absence will be felt.

    “Paige’s deep experience and knowledge of the nominations process has been a driving force behind the President’s historic record and breadth of judicial confirmations,“ Delery said in a statement. “Her commitment to ensuring that our federal bench contains highly qualified candidates who reflect the diversity of the country has been an incredible asset to the White House. She will be greatly missed.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • SUPREME COURT NOTEBOOK: Justices yet to decide any cases

    SUPREME COURT NOTEBOOK: Justices yet to decide any cases

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has never been so slow.

    For the first time, the justices have gone more than three months without resolving any cases in which they heard arguments, since their term began in early October.

    By this point, they always had decided at least one case, and usually a handful, according to Adam Feldman, the creator of the Empirical SCOTUS blog.

    But fall turned to winter without any decisions, and not even a three-week holiday break produced any published opinions.

    The next opportunity is Monday, before the justices take another break of nearly four weeks.

    The court has offered no explanation, but several possibilities exist: a change in personnel with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joining the court, less consensus on a deeply divided bench and the consequences of last term’s leak of a draft opinion in the case that overturned a half-century of abortion rights.

    While their opinions have not been prolific, the justices’ questioning of lawyers has been robust, with Jackson the most verbose questioner at the court’s arguments, Feldman has found.

    “If the amount of speech is related to the amount of writing we will find in her opinions and to opinions to which she signs on, this could also hamper the pace,” Feldman wrote on Twitter.

    The divide between the six conservative and three liberal justices is showing up more often in decisions. Last term produced more 6-3 outcomes than unanimous decisions, which typically make up the largest share, according to statistics compiled by Scotusblog.

    This term, too, seems likely to produce its share of sharp divisions over the consideration of race in college admissions, voting rights, election law and a dispute between religious and gay rights.

    Cases in which more than one justice writes an opinion, whether a dissent or a concurrence, take longer than those in which the court is unanimous.

    In 2018, then-Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg produced the court’s first opinion on Nov. 6, in a case argued 36 days earlier. “Rapid Ruth,” as Ginsburg jokingly called herself, was the court’s speediest writer. Ginsburg died in 2020.

    Last year, just under 30% of decisions were unanimous, and presumably some of this term’s cases will lead to that same result.

    That’s where the early May leak of Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion in the abortion case might come into play. It’s possible, and maybe even likely, that the justices have changed some of their internal practices to reduce the chances an opinion will leak. Any changes could extend the time to finalize a decision.

    The court has said nothing about the state of the investigation of the leak that Chief Justice John Roberts ordered. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the court brought in outside government investigators who helped narrow down the possible suspects by early summer. But no culprit has been identified, apparently.

    ___

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor is the most recent of the nine members of the nation’s highest court to comment on the June decision that overturned nearly a half-century of abortion rights.

    Sotomayor was responding to a simple question from Berkeley law school dean Erwin Chemerinsky, who moderated an event with the justice for the American Association of Law Schools. After last term’s momentous decisions, Chemerinsky asked, “How are you?”

    Sotomayor appeared to focus on just one of the term’s big, conservative-driven cases, which also included expanding gun and religious rights and limiting the Biden administration’s efforts to combat climate change. Sotomayor dissented in all those cases.

    “If you’re asking how that momentous decision affected me, my word description would have varied from day to day,” Sotomayor said. “Sometimes I was shell-shocked. Other times, I was just deeply, deeply sad. And many times I did have a sense of despair about the direction my court was going.”

    But ultimately, she said, she felt she had no choice but to persevere. “Yet I realized that one doesn’t have an option to fall prey to despair, that I have to get up and keep on fighting,” she said.

    The event was held in early January, and the association posted a video online last week.

    Other justices have talked about the damage to the court that they believe resulted from the leak. Justice Elena Kagan spoke several times during the summer and fall about the dangers of the court being viewed as a political body.

    ___

    Sotomayor appeared virtually for the law school association event, but she had been among the court’s most frequent travelers before the coronavirus pandemic changed everything.

    Only then-Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in 2016, rivaled her in getting out of Washington, she said.

    The justices are supposed to report their travel when someone else foots the bill in an annual disclosure that is released to the public.

    But Fix the Court, a watchdog group, has found gaps in the reporting for Sotomayor and other justices.

    The group on Tuesday sued the Justice Department under the federal Freedom of Information Act for records related to the justices’ travel. The U.S. Marshals Service, part of the Justice Department, regularly provides security when the justices leave town.

    Fix the Court is seeking records from 2018 to 2022. Two earlier lawsuits and requests for information under state public records laws turned up trips that were not reported by the justices and additional details of some trips that were.

    In 2016, Sotomayor took six trips paid for by public universities that she initially omitted. She eventually updated her report for that year.

    ___

    Follow the AP’s coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden outpacing Trump, Obama with diverse judicial nominees

    Biden outpacing Trump, Obama with diverse judicial nominees

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — For the Biden White House, a quartet of four female judges in Colorado encapsulates its mission when it comes to the federal judiciary.

    Charlotte Sweeney is the first openly LGBT woman to serve on the federal bench west of the Mississippi River and has a background in workers’ rights. Nina Wang, an immigrant from Taiwan, is the first magistrate judge in the state to be elevated to a federal district seat.

    Regina Rodriguez, who is Latina and Asian American, served in a U.S. attorney’s office. Veronica Rossman, who came from the former Soviet Union with her family as refugees, is the first former federal public defender to be a judge on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

    With these four women, who were confirmed during the first two years of President Joe Biden’s term, there is a breadth of personal and professional diversity that the White House and Democratic senators have promoted in their push to transform the judiciary.

    “The nominations send a powerful message to the legal community that this kind of public service is open to a lot of people it wasn’t open to before,” Ron Klain, the White House chief of staff, told The Associated Press. “What it says to the public at large is that if you wind up in federal court for whatever reason, you’re much more likely to have a judge who understands where you came from, who you are, and what you’ve been through.”

    Klain said that “having a more diverse federal bench in every single respect shows more respect for the American people.”

    The White House and Democratic senators are closing out the first two years of Biden’s presidency having installed more federal judges than did Biden’s two immediate predecessors. The rapid clip reflects a zeal to offset Donald Trump’s legacy of stacking the judiciary with young conservatives who often lacked in racial diversity.

    So far, 97 lifetime federal judges have been confirmed under Biden, a figure that outpaces both Trump (85) and Barack Obama (62) at this point in their presidencies, according to data from the White House and the office of Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. D-N.Y. The 97 from the Biden presidency includes Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, that court’s first Black woman, as well as 28 circuit court judges and 68 district court judges.

    Three out of every four judges tapped by Biden and confirmed by the Senate in the past two years were women. About two-thirds were people of color. The Biden list includes 11 Black women to the powerful circuit courts, more than those installed under all previous presidents combined. There were also 11 former public defenders named to the circuit courts, also more than all of Biden’s predecessors combined.

    “It’s a story of writing a new chapter for the federal judiciary, with truly extraordinary folks representing the broadest possible types of diversity,” said Paige Herwig, a senior White House counsel.

    The White House prioritized judicial nominations from the start, with Biden transition officials soliciting names of potential picks from Democratic senators in late 2020. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, swiftly moved nominees through hearings and Schumer set aside floor time for votes.

    Particular focus was placed on nominees for the appellate courts, where the vast majority of federal cases end, and those coming from states with two Democratic senators, who could find easier consensus in a process where there’s still significant deference given to home-state officials.

    Democrats hope to speed up the tempo of confirmations next year, a goal more easily accomplished by a 51-49 Senate that will give them a slim majority on committees. In the past two years, votes on some of Biden’s more contested judicial nominees would deadlock in committee votes, requiring more procedural steps that ate up valuable Senate floor time.

    Republicans had also picked up the confirmation pace considerably in Trump’s final two years in office, after GOP senators put in place a rule change — now being used by Democrats — that significantly shortened the time required to process district court nominees.

    Schumer said he also hopes to install more judges in appeals courts that shifted rightward under Trump, an effort that the majority leader described as rebalancing those courts.

    “Trump loaded up the bench with hard right ‘MAGA’ type judges who are not only out of step with the American people, they were even out of step with the Republican Party,” Schumer said in an interview, using shorthand for Trump’s 2016 campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again.”

    Schumer added: “We had a mission, it’s not just a predilection. It was a mission to try and redress that balance.”

    Despite their limited power to actually derail Biden’s judicial picks, some Republicans have fought ferociously against many of them, arguing that their views were out of the legal mainstream despite Democratic arguments otherwise. The precarious 50-50 Senate, where Schumer’s plans were often thwarted by ailments or absences, meant several Biden nominees languished for months and were never confirmed before the Senate wrapped up its work this year.

    Democrats also say certain judicial nominees, particularly women of color, were unfairly targeted by their GOP critics, leading to tense fights in the Judiciary Committee.

    “The Republicans have just got a problem with this. Not all of them, some do,” Durbin said in an interview. “And when you call them out on it … ‘Why is it consistently women of color that are the object of your wrath?’ and they can’t answer.”

    Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., a committee member, said Biden’s picks were “very, very left, but unapologetically so.” He said Durbin’s assertions about Republicans were “absurd.”

    “I think the president made a commitment to his base that he was going to put people who shared a very left-wing worldview, who are generally quite critical of, for instance, the criminal justice system, think that it is systemically racist,” Hawley said.

    Despite the strengthened Democratic majority, the White House could nonetheless confront some challenges when it comes to nominating and confirming judges over the next two years.

    For instance, Biden has made barely a dent in the number of vacancies for district court judges in states that have two Republican senators, confirming just one such person: Stephen Locher, now a judge in the Southern District of Iowa. Senators still adhere to a practice that allows home-state senators virtual veto power over district court picks — a process known colloquially as the “blue slip” — and Democrats are facing an increased push from advocates to discard the tradition, arguing that it only allows for Republican obstructionism.

    For instance, Republican Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin earlier this year blocked action on William Pocan, nominated to serve in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, after initially recommending him as part of a bloc of nominees to the White House. Durbin has said he would reconsider the current “blue slip” practice if he sees systematic abuse by senators, especially based on a nominee’s race, gender or sexual orientation.

    But cases like Pocan’s have been rare, Durbin said, and other influential Republicans are affording some level of deference to the Biden White House when it comes to judges.

    “I can’t think of a system where Republicans get all their judges and Democrats get none of theirs,” said South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, who will be the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee next year. “That’s not a viable system.”

    One matter Biden has not been willing to address: the structure of the Supreme Court.

    Any push to change the highest court in the land, even in small ways, has found little footing at the White House, with Biden aides instead highlighting the president’s push to nominate federal judges as the best and most substantial way to secure a Democratic legacy in the judiciary.

    As Biden took office in 2021, calls for changes to the Supreme Court were growing louder, after Trump named three new justices that tilted the court’s makeup far to the right.

    In June, the 6-3 conservative majority overturned the landmark decision Roe v. Wade, eliminating the constitutional protections for abortion that had existed for nearly 50 years. It did so despite a majority of people in the United States believing abortion should be legal. In the same term, the justices also weakened gun control and curbed the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to manage climate change.

    Polls have shown a dip in approval for the court and respect for it. A Gallup Poll found Americans had the lowest level of trust in the court in 50 years.

    Biden has spoken out about the rulings, and argued the court is more of an “advocacy group these days.” But he has not embraced calls to expand the court or even to subject justices to a code of conduct that binds other federal judges. He has not spoken publicly about a study he commissioned on the future of the Supreme Court that finished last year and suggested term limits, mandatory retirement and judicial ethics codes as ways to restore trust in the institution.

    White House officials similarly have declined to weigh in on potential changes, even as those advocating for change believe the push will grow stronger this term, as voting rights, clean water, immigration and student loan forgiveness come before the justices.

    “I wouldn’t, in any way minimize the progress and the importance of what President Biden is doing on the lower courts,” said Chris Kang of Demand Justice, an advocacy group leading the push to expand the court. “But at the same time, we need to look at the core problem, which is the Supreme Court, and what can be done to fix the issues.”

    For now, the White House’s focus will remain on the people who sit on the courts.

    It’s a particularly meaningful achievement for Biden, a former Judiciary Committee chairman himself, and for Klain, who was chief counsel for Biden on that committee and a lawyer who worked on judicial nominations in the Clinton White House.

    “With all due respect to my predecessors, I’m sure this is a higher priority for me,” said Klain, who meets weekly with the judicial nominations team. But, referring to Biden, Klain added: “The fact that he makes it such a priority, makes it a big priority for me.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Supreme Court wrestles with Biden’s deportation policy

    Supreme Court wrestles with Biden’s deportation policy

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday wrestled with a politically tinged dispute over a Biden administration policy that would prioritize deportation of people in the country illegally who pose the greatest public safety risk.

    It was not clear after arguments that stretched past two hours and turned highly contentious at times whether the justices would allow the policy to take effect, or side with Republican-led states that have so far succeeded in blocking it.

    At the center of the case is a September 2021 directive from the Department of Homeland Security that paused deportations unless individuals had committed acts of terrorism, espionage or “egregious threats to public safety.” The guidance, issued after Joe Biden became president, updated a Trump-era policy that removed people in the country illegally regardless of criminal history or community ties.

    On Tuesday, the administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer told the justices that federal law does “not create an unyielding mandate to apprehend and remove” every one of the more than 11 million immigrants living in the country illegally.

    Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said it would be “incredibly destabilizing on the ground” for the high court to require that. Congress has not given DHS enough money to vastly increase the number of people it holds and deports, the Biden administration has said.

    But Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone told the court the administration is violating federal law that requires the detention and deportation of people who are in the U.S. illegally and who have been convicted of any serious crime, not just the most serious, specifically defined ones.

    Chief Justice John Roberts was among the conservative justices who pushed back strongly on the Biden administration’s arguments. “It’s our job to say what the law is, not whether or not it can be possibly implemented or whether there are difficulties there, and I don’t think we should change that responsibility just because Congress and the executive can’t agree on something … I don’t think we should let them off the hook,” he said.

    Yet Roberts, in questioning Stone, also called Prelogar’s argument compelling.

    “It’s impossible for the executive to do what you want it to do, right?” Roberts asked.

    Roberts wasn’t totally satisfied when Stone said the number of people potentially affected total 60,000 to 80,000.

    Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that whatever the actual number, “the resources still aren’t there.”

    The court’s three liberal justices, on the other hand, were sympathetic to the Biden administration’s arguments. Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, made clear they believed that Texas and Louisiana, which joined Texas in suing over the directive, weren’t even entitled to bring their case.

    The case is the latest example of a Republican litigation strategy that has succeeded in slowing Biden administration initiatives by going to GOP-friendly courts. Kagan picked up on that during arguments, saying that Texas could file its suit in a courthouse where it was guaranteed to get a sympathetic hearing and that one judge stopped “a federal immigration policy in its tracks.”

    In a separate ongoing legal dispute, three judges chosen by then-President Donald Trump are among the four Republican-appointed judges who have so far prevented the administration’s student loan cancellation program from taking effect.

    The states said they would face added costs of having to detain people the federal government might allow to remain free inside the United States, despite their criminal records.

    Federal appeals courts had reached conflicting decisions over DHS guidance.

    The federal appeals court in Cincinnati earlier overturned a district judge’s order that put the policy on hold in a lawsuit filed by Arizona, Ohio and Montana.

    But in the separate suit filed by Texas and Louisiana, a federal judge in Texas ordered a nationwide halt to the guidance and a federal appellate panel in New Orleans declined to step in.

    In July, the court voted 5-4 to leave the immigration policy frozen nationwide. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court’s three liberals in saying they would have allowed the Biden administration to put in place the guidance.

    At the same time, the court said it would hear arguments in the case in late November.

    The justices have several questions to sort through, whether the states should have been permitted to file their challenge in the first place, whether the policy violates immigration law and, if it does, whether it was appropriate for the Texas-based judge to block it.

    On that last point, Prelogar said the judge’s decision to “vacate” the policy was wrong, and her argument questioned whether judges have been getting it all wrong for decades.

    The issue touched a nerve, especially among Roberts, Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson, the justices who once served on the federal appeals court in Washington that regularly vacates policies it determines are unlawful.

    “Fairly radical,” Roberts said. “Pretty astonishing,” Kavanaugh said. Jackson, more restrained, also questioned Prelogar’s reasoning.

    “There seems to be a kind of D.C. Circuit cartel,” Kagan joked.

    A decision in U.S. v. Texas, 22-58, is expected by late June.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Jackson, in dissent, issues first Supreme Court opinion

    Jackson, in dissent, issues first Supreme Court opinion

    [ad_1]

    FILE – Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stands as she and members of the Supreme Court pose for a new group portrait following her addition, at the Supreme Court building in Washington, Oct. 7, 2022. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File )DCSA122

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Crawford: Even with Jackson on the bench, Supreme Court will continue rightward turn

    Crawford: Even with Jackson on the bench, Supreme Court will continue rightward turn

    [ad_1]

    Crawford: Even with Jackson on the bench, Supreme Court will continue rightward turn – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    CBS News national and legal correspondent Jan Crawford previews the new Supreme Court term, which starts Monday.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Supreme Court rearranges its seating chart as Jackson takes the bench | CNN Politics

    Supreme Court rearranges its seating chart as Jackson takes the bench | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Tradition is a long-held value at the US Supreme Court, where the nine justices’ adherence to a myriad of historic rules makes the inner workings of America’s highest court reliably consistent even as its decisions sometimes send shock waves through the country.

    Some of those treasured rules will soon be on display as the court’s newest member, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, takes her seat on the bench for oral arguments. Although Jackson was administered her official oaths last spring, her investiture ceremony sealed her position on the bench days before the court’s new term begins on Monday, October 3.

    The addition of Jackson will cause the court to invoke one of its closely held traditions: the rearrangement of where the justices are seated on the bench when a new justice joins its ranks.

    In the courtroom, justices are seated by seniority, with the chief justice in the middle. “The senior associate justice sits to his right, the second senior to his left, and so on, alternating right and left by seniority,” according to the court.

    This means that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas will occupy the same seat this term that they did last term. But the remaining justices will be shuffled around, with Jackson seated to Roberts’ left on the end, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who joined the court in late 2020, seated on the opposite end, and the other five justices taking new seats depending on when they joined the court.

    On Friday, Jackson also participated in other court traditions, including sitting in the historic John Marshall Bench Chair at the beginning of the ceremony, as is customary for all new justices.

    President Joe Biden attended the Friday morning ceremony. It is customary before the event for the president to chat privately with the justices in a conference room and to sign the court’s oversized guest book.

    After the ceremony, Jackson took the traditional walk down the 36 marble steps at the front of the columned building accompanied by the chief justice.

    Although the justices will take new seats this term, much of the public won’t ever see them in those positions because photography is not allowed in the courtroom. But Roberts has announced that after more than two years of pandemic-related restrictions, members of the public will be allowed back into the courtroom, though he has yet to lay out details.

    Before October, the justices will likely discuss whether the court will continue to allow a live audio feed of oral arguments, a practice that began during the pandemic that enables the public to follow along in real time.

    Continuing that practice could allow court watchers across the country to get an understanding of Jackson’s style on the bench as she participates in oral arguments during her first term.

    In the new term, the justices will consider issues including voting rights, immigration, affirmative action, environmental regulations and religious liberty — areas where the solid conservative majority can easily control the outcomes.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden and Harris to attend ceremonial investiture for Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson

    Biden and Harris to attend ceremonial investiture for Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson

    [ad_1]

    Washington — President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, joined by their spouses, will attend the investiture ceremony Friday for Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court, the White House announced.

    The ceremony, which will be held in the courtroom before an invitation-only audience, will take place before the Supreme Court convenes for the start of its new term Monday. Jackson was nominated to the high court by Mr. Biden to replace retiring Justice Stephen Breyer and confirmed by the Senate in April.

    She was sworn in as the 116th justice at the end of June.

    During the ceremonial investiture, Jackson will be escorted to the well of the courtroom and sit in the same chair used by Chief Justice John Marshall, which has been used for the investiture of every justice since 1972, according to the court.

    In addition to Mr. Biden, Harris, first lady Dr. Jill Biden and second gentleman Doug Emhoff, Attorney General Merrick Garland and Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, along with their deputies, will also attend the ceremony and will be seated at the counsel’s table in front of the bench.

    During the ceremony, Chief Justice John Roberts will administer the judicial oath to Jackson. Breyer also administered the judicial oath to Jackson in late June.

    The high court ended its last term, Breyer’s last as a justice, with blockbuster rulings ending the constitutional right to an abortion, expanding gun rights and curbing the power of the Environenmental Protection Agency to combat climate change. 

    In it new term, Jackson’s first, the justices will weigh in on race-conscious admissions policies at selective universities, voting rights and federal elections, and anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ people.

    They will also welcome members of the public to oral arguments for the first time since the COVID-19 pandemic and provide live audio of scheduled arguments for the new term. The high court began providing audio of its arguments after the pandemic closed the courtroom and continued to do so through its most recent term. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Supreme Court justice ties lessons from reality show ‘Survivor’ into commencement address | CNN Politics

    Supreme Court justice ties lessons from reality show ‘Survivor’ into commencement address | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    When Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered her commencement address to American University law students on Saturday, she leaned on an unexpected source for life advice: The reality television show “Survivor.”

    “I am a ‘Survivor’ superfan,” Jackson told graduates of the American University Washington College of Law in her first commencement speech since her elevation to the high court. “That’s right. When I say ‘Survivor,’ I am indeed referring to the reality TV show, where people are stranded on an island and compete to become the last person standing.”

    The long-running reality series served as the central theme of Jackson’s speech as she weaved in certain episodes to teach life lessons on how to survive a legal career.

    “If you make the most of the resources you have, use your strengths to make your mark and play the long game in your interactions with others, you will not only survive – you will thrive,” she said.

    Jackson, who was confirmed to the court last year, barely mentioned her day job during her remarks in Washington, but she did note that May is a “busy time.” She also revealed that it has not entirely sunken in as yet that she is a Supreme Court justice.

    “I still wake up some mornings confused as to whether this is really happening to me or am I living in a dream,” Jackson said.

    Her speech detailed her “incredible journey” since graduating from law school. She noted, for instance, that while it is well known that she is the first African American woman to serve on the high court, she also was only the 40th female African American to be appointed to a federal district court, and only the ninth to serve on the federal circuit court.

    Jackson’s speech came as the justices are racing to finish more than 30 opinions by the end of June that include divisive issues such as affirmative action, voting rights and religious liberty. As the junior-most justice on the bench, it is unlikely that Jackson will be assigned to write the majority opinion in any of the cases that most capture the public’s attention, especially because of the court’s strong 6-3 conservative majority. To date, she has cast her vote with fellow liberal justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor on high-profile disputes that usually fall along traditional ideological lines.

    In addition, she has been the most vocal member of the court during oral arguments, often dominating the dais to ask questions. “Justice Jackson had a record setting term with over 78.8k words spoken across all arguments,” Adam Feldman, a Supreme Court scholar, tweeted recently.

    The high court is running unusually late in issuing opinions, so it is difficult to cull together detailed vote patterns for Jackson. In some cases, she has found herself siding with conservatives.

    On Saturday, she made no mention of tensions on the Supreme Court, nor did she refer to increasing pressure from outside parties to have the court adopt an ethics code directed at the justices themselves.

    Instead, she spoke directly to the students about life in the law. Quoting the host of her favorite reality show, Jackson turned to the graduates and said: “Survivors ready? Go!”

    “You are ready.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link