“It would appear that Kavanaugh has finally come to recognize what has been apparent to some of us all along. Namely, that Trump’s immigration crackdown actively imperils the rights of many U.S. citizens.
Good for Kavanaugh, right? Better late than never? Well, maybe. Because it is also worth noting that Kavanaugh’s December opinion makes no reference to his September opinion. How should we make sense of this mysterious and rather glaring absence or omission?
…
It seems impossible that these two Kavanaugh opinions are unrelated to each other. So what are we left to conclude about their connection? What is Kavanaugh not saying about the link?
One conceivable conclusion is that Kavanaugh now seeks to walk back his unfortunate past statement without explicitly acknowledging his past misjudgment.
Another conceivable conclusion is that Kavanaugh now hopes to apologize for butchering the Fourth Amendment without doing any actual apologizing. Call it a mea culpa minus the mea.
Needless to say, none of this reflects well on Kavanaugh and his possible motivations. Perhaps we’ll get a more forthright account from him in a future case.”
https://reason.com/2026/01/01/did-brett-kavanaugh-just-apologize-for-butchering-the-fourth-amendment-maybe/
“According to Kavanaugh, it is “common sense” to allow immigration agents to seize people based on “relevant factors” such as their “apparent ethnicity” and that they “gather in certain locations to seek daily work.” As for the argument that President Donald Trump’s sweeping immigration dragnet will inevitably ensnare U.S. citizens too, and thus violate their constitutional rights, Kavanaugh simply waved those worries away. “As for stops of those individuals who are legally in the country, the questioning in those circumstances is typically brief,” Kavanaugh asserted, “and those individuals may promptly go free after making clear to the immigration officers that they are U. S. citizens or otherwise legally in the United States.”
But the facts submitted as part of this very case undermine Kavanaugh’s breezy assertion.
…
” One agent ordered him to “Stop right there” while another “ran towards [him].” The agents repeatedly asked Gavidia whether he is American—and they repeatedly ignored his answer: “I am an American.” The agents asked Gavidia what hospital he was born in—and he explained that he did not know which hospital. “The agents forcefully pushed [Gavidia] up against the metal gated fence, put [his] hands behind [his] back, and twisted [his] arm.” An agent asked again, “What hospital were you born in?” Gavidia again explained that he did not know which hospital and said “East L.A.” He then told the agents he could show them his Real ID. The agents took Gavidia’s ID and his phone and kept his phone for 20 minutes. They never returned his ID.”
Those agents did not “promptly” let this U.S. citizen go after a quick chat. Instead, they seized him and “forcefully pushed [Gavidia] up against the metal gated fence, put [his] hands behind [his] back, and twisted [his] arm,” all while ignoring his repeated exclamations of his status as a U.S. citizen.
Kavanaugh did not mention any of those inconvenient details. But he did offer this laughable observation: “To the extent that excessive force has been used [by immigration agents], the Fourth Amendment prohibits such action, and remedies should be available in federal court.”
That observation is laughable coming from Kavanaugh because Kavanaugh joined the Supreme Court’s 2022 majority opinion in Egbert v. Boule, which, as I noted at the time, “made it practically impossible to sue a federal officer over an alleged constitutional rights violation.”
In other words, when Kavanaugh was directly presented with the opportunity to ensure that “remedies” for Fourth Amendment injuries would “be available in federal court,” he did the opposite: He joined the majority in shielding abusive federal officers from facing civil suits over even the most blatant constitutional violations.”
https://reason.com/2025/09/11/kavanaugh-flaunts-the-fourth-amendment-and-blesses-trumps-racial-profiling/
“All three of the Court’s Democrats, meanwhile, appeared sympathetic to Glossip’s arguments, and spent much of the case batting down Alito’s proposals to dismiss the case on procedural grounds — though Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson showed some openness to forming an alliance with Thomas to send the case back down to the state courts in order to gather additional evidence.
That leaves Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, conservative Republicans who asked some questions that appeared sympathetic to Glossip, as the wild cards in this case. It is possible that they could provide the fourth and fifth vote to save Glossip’s life, but far from certain.
The alleged constitutional violation that is before the Court — that prosecutors withheld evidence that a key witness has a serious mental illness, and failed to correct this witness when he lied on the stand — is fairly marginal. It turns on four words in handwritten notes by prosecutor Connie Smothermon that were not turned over to Glossip’s lawyers until January 2023. The state agrees with Glossip’s legal team that these four words reveal a sufficiently serious constitutional violation to justify giving him a new trial.
But while this narrow legal issue, which is the only issue before the Supreme Court, is the kind of legal question that reasonable judges could disagree upon, Smothermon’s notes are only one piece of a wide range of evidence suggesting that Glossip’s criminal conviction is unconstitutional: Oklahoma conducted two independent investigations, both of which concluded that Glossip’s trial was fundamentally flawed.
Among other things, those investigations found that Justin Sneed — the man who actually committed the murder at issue here — was pressured by police to implicate Glossip in the crime. They also show that police and the prosecution lost or destroyed evidence that could potentially exonerate Glossip. And they show that police inexplicably did not question potentially important witnesses or search obvious places for evidence.
Now, however, Glossip’s life likely turns upon whether Kavanaugh and Barrett are moved by the procedural arguments pressed by the Court’s right flank, or by the arguments pressed by both Glossip and the state: That four words in Smothermon’s notes reveal a serious constitutional violation.”
https://www.vox.com/scotus/377151/supreme-court-richard-glossip-oklahoma-death-penalty
“Edwards did not simply limit the scope of Ramos. Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s majority opinion also overruled a 32-year-old decision governing when the Supreme Court’s precedents apply retroactively. Kavanaugh did so, moreover, without following the ordinary procedures that the Court normally follows before overruling one of its previous decisions. As Justice Elena Kagan points out in dissent, no one asked the Court to overrule anything in Edwards, and the Court “usually confines itself to the issues raised and briefed by the parties.”
Edwards, moreover, is the second time in less than a month that Kavanaugh authored a majority opinion that overrules a prior decision without following the Court’s normal procedures. In late April, Kavanaugh handed down a decision in Jones v. Mississippi that effectively overruled a 2016 decision establishing that nearly all juvenile offenders may not be sentenced to life without parole.”
…
“this matters because Kavanaugh is the median vote on the Supreme Court. Last week, SCOTUSBlog published an analysis finding that Kavanaugh voted with the majority in 97 percent of cases decided so far this Supreme Court term — more than any other justice. If you want to win a case before the Supreme Court, you’ve got a tough road ahead of you if you can’t secure Kavanaugh’s vote.
And yet, Kavanaugh is signaling in Edwards, Jones, and in a few other significant opinions that he does not particularly care about precedent”
…
“When deciding whether to overrule a precedent, Kavanaugh wrote, the Court should consider whether the previous decision is “not just wrong, but grievously or egregiously wrong.” It should consider whether “the prior decision caused significant negative jurisprudential or real-world consequences,” and it should ask whether overruling the prior precedent would upset “legitimate expectations of those who have reasonably relied on the precedent.”
But Kavanaugh engaged in none of this analysis in Edwards, and it’s hard to see how Teague would qualify as worthy of being overruled under the standard Kavanaugh articulated in Ramos. Kavanaugh doesn’t claim in Edwards that Teague was egregiously wrong or that it’s led to “significant negative jurisprudential or real-world consequences.” Indeed, he claims the exact opposite — that Teague’s holding regarding “watershed” rules should be overruled because it’s had no jurisprudential or real-world consequences whatsoever.
Kavanaugh also ignored the standard he laid out in Ramos in his opinion in Jones v. Mississippi, the decision involving whether juveniles who commit homicide crimes can be sentenced to life without parole.”
…
“Kavanaugh, the median justice on most contentious issues that arise before the Court, is perfectly willing to overrule more than a century worth of precedent. And he’s willing to do so even when overruling those precedents would upend fundamental assumptions about how state election laws work — and who is in charge of deciding how our elections are conducted.
More broadly, much of American law — the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, the right to an abortion, the power of the EPA to protect the environment, the power of states to require businesses not to discriminate against LGBTQ workers and customers, and numerous other laws — hinges on the Supreme Court’s willingness to honor past decisions that Republicans don’t like very much.
Liberals, in other words, are depending on the doctrine of stare decisis — the idea that courts should typically be bound by their prior decisions — to stave off a conservative legal revolution.
And as liberals shout for stare decisis to save them, the Court’s median justice is looking down upon them, and whispering “no.””