The Conservative Supreme Court justices can’t agree on what the major questions doctrine is and what exceptions to it should be.
The Supreme Court made a major change in how lower courts operate by limiting nationwide injunctions. Such injunctions could have prevented the US government from illegally taking all this money in the first place and avoided the issue of if, when, and to whom, the tariff money is paid back. This policy allows the president to act illegally for months or years until the Supreme Court finally resolves a case.
“When federal judges told the Trump administration that it was necessary to provide due process to suspected undocumented immigrants before deporting them, Homan said the administration was “not stopping,” and added: “I don’t care what the judges think.”
…
The FBI reportedly recorded Homan accepting a $50,000 bribe from undercover agents posing as potential government contractors. Homan has denied taking the money or doing anything wrong, and the White House has dismissed the case as politically motivated, but lots of questions remain unanswered”
ICE has been capturing people here legally and detaining them far away from where they were picked up. When courts find out about this and order ICE to release individuals, ICE sometimes doesn’t follow the orders. ICE Lawyers have been overwhelmed defending ICE’s lawlessness. One of ICE’s own lawyers admitted that when she tells them they have to release people held illegally, they don’t follow through because they don’t respect the courts.
The US rebelled against Britain partially because the British would invade people’s homes based on warrants signed by the executive themselves, rather than by a judge approving the justification of the warrant. That’s why the Constitution has the fourth amendment. ICE tried to secretly start using monarchical British-style warrants to invade people’s homes without a real warrant.
“Federal immigration officers are asserting sweeping power to forcibly enter people’s homes without a judge’s warrant, according to an internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement memo obtained by The Associated Press, marking a sharp reversal of longstanding guidance meant to respect constitutional limits on government searches.
The memo authorizes ICE officers to use force to enter a residence based solely on a more narrow administrative warrant to arrest someone with a final order of removal, a move that advocates say collides with Fourth Amendment protections and upends years of advice given to immigrant communities.
The shift comes as the Trump administration dramatically expands immigration arrests nationwide, deploying thousands of officers under a mass deportation campaign that is already reshaping enforcement tactics in cities such as Minneapolis.”
“A federal judge handling a lawsuit over the deportation of pro-Palestinian activists excoriated top administration officials, including President Donald Trump, for trampling on the First Amendment and for what the judge described as a fearful approach to freedom.
“There was no policy here,” said U.S. District Judge William Young, an 85-year-old Reagan appointee who has been on the federal bench in Boston for 40 years. “What happened here is an unconstitutional conspiracy to pick off certain people.”
…
“I find it breathtaking that I have been compelled on the evidence to find the conduct of such high-level officers of our government — cabinet secretaries — conspired to infringe the First Amendment rights of people with such rights here in the United States,” Young said. “These cabinet secretaries have failed in their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution.”
…
Young used extraordinarily stark language during the hearing, describing Trump as an “authoritarian” while insisting that he was choosing the term carefully, rather than simply using a “pejorative.”
…
The judge found the president and his aides targeted the members of the group for their First Amendment-protected views and speech, guided by an anonymously run private website targeting Palestinian students in the United States.
“I’ve asked myself why — how did this happen? How could our own government, the highest officials in our government, seek to infringe the rights of people lawfully here in the United States? And I’ve come to believe that there’s a concept of freedom here that I don’t understand,” the judge continued. “The record in this case convinces me that these high officials, and I include the president of the United States, have a fearful view of freedom.”
…
“These professionals were taken off anti-terrorist investigations. They were taken off human trafficking investigations all to look up … what dirt they could find on this group that some private agency, at the very highest levels of the DHS decided — that’s the best use of those people,” Young said. “If ever you want chapter and verse about how the government can be weaponized against a disfavored group, that’s the record of it.””
The conservative court decided no matter how extreme a partisan gerrymander, it is legal. However, they said racial gerrymanders are illegal. A district judge dug into the Texas gerrymander and concluded that the actors involved explicitly gerrymandered based on race. Without disputing the facts, the conservatives on the Supreme Court rejected it.
“Why does Trump keep winning these preliminary emergency requests before SCOTUS? Unfortunately, we do not always know why because the Court does not always say why. Many of these emergency orders—which critics often call the shadow docket—are issued without an accompanying opinion that explains the Supreme Court’s thinking.
…
As The New York Times put it, “more than three dozen federal judges have told The New York Times that the Supreme Court’s flurry of brief, opaque emergency orders in cases related to the Trump administration have left them confused about how to proceed in those matters and are hurting the judiciary’s image with the public.”
Moreover, according to the same Times article, it is not just liberal judges doing the complaining
…
Whenever the Trump administration asks the Supreme Court to issue this sort of emergency order in its favor, the justices are basically forced to grapple with the following questions: Is it better in a particular case to let the president carry out his contested agenda right away? Or is it better in a particular case to keep the president’s contested agenda on a temporary pause while the courts—after full briefing and arguments, including oral arguments before SCOTUS—have determined that the agenda does in fact pass constitutional or statutory muster?
The Supreme Court’s current majority does seem to think that it is generally better to let Trump’s agenda speed ahead. But even if that pro-executive approach is the correct one—which is a pretty big if—the majority is not doing itself any favors by keeping its pro-executive reasoning to itself.”
“Her key example of this alleged judicial malfeasance is the case of Lochner v. New York (1905), in which the Supreme Court struck down a state economic regulation on the grounds that it violated the right to economic liberty that was secured by the Fourteenth Amendment. “Courts owe deference to legislative majorities in determining how to handle economic and social problems,” Barrett writes in opposition to Lochner. The Supreme Court “must not infringe on the democratic process by entrenching issues that the Constitution leaves open.”
Barrett thus favorably invokes, and cites, the Lochner dissent written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., who thought the Supreme Court had no business second-guessing the decisions of state regulators and should instead adopt a thoroughgoing posture of judicial deference.
For an originalist, the central question raised by Lochner is whether or not the Fourteenth Amendment, as originally understood, protects an unenumerated right to economic liberty.
According to the Holmes-Barrett view, the Fourteenth Amendment does not.
But the historical evidence says otherwise. According to the principal author of section one of the Fourteenth Amendment, Rep. John Bingham (R–Ohio), “the provisions of the Constitution guaranteeing rights, privileges, and immunities” include “the constitutional liberty…to work in an honest calling and contribute by your toil in some sort to the support of yourself, to the support of your fellow men, and to be secure in the enjoyment of the fruits of your toil.”
Furthermore, as I’ve previously noted, “even those who opposed the passage of the 14th Amendment agreed that it was designed to protect economic liberty from overreaching state regulation—indeed, that was a big reason why they opposed the amendment in the first place.” When both the friends and foes of a constitutional provision agree in real time about what it meant, their agreement counts as important historical evidence for the provision’s original public meaning. In this case, such evidence supports the position of the Lochner majority and undermines the position of the Lochner dissent.
Alas, Barrett’s book doesn’t mention any of this relevant historical material. Instead, she basically just echoes Holmes’s ahistorical dissent and leaves it at that.
That’s too bad. As Barrett herself put it, “interpreting the Constitution today require[s] us to understand its historical meaning.” Yet Barrett neglects to do that very thing in one of the main cases she invokes to support her position.”