Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
In It to Win It
In It to Win It's Journal
In It to Win It's Journal
June 27, 2026
Here's the current state of play in the Senate if you use polls and reasonable guesses about the state of play in each s
Here's the current state of play in the Senate if you use polls and reasonable guesses about the state of play in each seat projects.gelliottmorris.com/senate-2026/...
— G Elliott Morris (@gelliottmorris.com) 2026-06-27T20:02:29.894Z
June 27, 2026
Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas Think Police Abuse of Black People Is Kind of Overblown - Jay Willis @ Balls & Strikes
https://ballsandstrikes.substack.com/p/samuel-alito-and-clarence-thomasOn a sunny weekday afternoon in September 2020, four members of the Metropolitan Police Department’s Gun Recovery Unit climbed out of their unmarked cars and approached a group of ten Black men on a sidewalk in northwest Washington, D.C. One of the officers asked 25-year-old Donte Carter if he had a gun on him. Carter, who was leaning against a parked car, said no, and lifted his shirt—twice—to show his empty waistband.
The police, however, had follow-up questions: The same officer asked Carter to hike up his pants, and when Carter did so, another officer noticed an L-shaped “bulge” in his shorts. Based on that observation, the cops frisked Carter and found a handgun. He was charged with an array of gun-related crimes, convicted, and sentenced to 14 months in prison.
Before his trial, Carter filed a motion to suppress the gun as evidence. His argument was that police had “seized” him within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, at the moment the officer told him to hike up his pants, since, as a young Black man, ignoring armed cops from a unit infamous for racial profiling wasn’t a viable option for Carter. And because the police had no reason to suspect him of anything at that time—again, he was just standing on the sidewalk, and had already shown that his waistband was empty—Carter argued that the officers had no grounds to search him.
The trial court rejected his argument, finding that Carter was not seized until after he hiked up his pants, and that the bulge the officer (allegedly) saw provided the reasonable suspicion necessary to frisk him. But in August 2025, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Court of Appeals threw out his conviction. As the court explained, the test for whether a defendant is “seized” is whether an “objective and reasonable person in the defendant’s shoes” would have felt free to end the conversation with police—an analysis that requires the court to consider, among many other factors, the “objective reality that people of color face during interactions with law enforcement.”
The police, however, had follow-up questions: The same officer asked Carter to hike up his pants, and when Carter did so, another officer noticed an L-shaped “bulge” in his shorts. Based on that observation, the cops frisked Carter and found a handgun. He was charged with an array of gun-related crimes, convicted, and sentenced to 14 months in prison.
Before his trial, Carter filed a motion to suppress the gun as evidence. His argument was that police had “seized” him within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, at the moment the officer told him to hike up his pants, since, as a young Black man, ignoring armed cops from a unit infamous for racial profiling wasn’t a viable option for Carter. And because the police had no reason to suspect him of anything at that time—again, he was just standing on the sidewalk, and had already shown that his waistband was empty—Carter argued that the officers had no grounds to search him.
The trial court rejected his argument, finding that Carter was not seized until after he hiked up his pants, and that the bulge the officer (allegedly) saw provided the reasonable suspicion necessary to frisk him. But in August 2025, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Court of Appeals threw out his conviction. As the court explained, the test for whether a defendant is “seized” is whether an “objective and reasonable person in the defendant’s shoes” would have felt free to end the conversation with police—an analysis that requires the court to consider, among many other factors, the “objective reality that people of color face during interactions with law enforcement.”
Here's something from a long, bad week at the Supreme Court that you might have missed: Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas arguing that under the "color-blind" Constitution, judges and juries have to pretend that police abuse of Black people does not exist
— Jay Willis (@jaywillis.net) 2026-06-27T14:22:52.664Z
June 27, 2026
Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas Think Police Abuse of Black People Is Kind of Overblown - Jay Willis @ Balls & Strikes
https://ballsandstrikes.substack.com/p/samuel-alito-and-clarence-thomasOn a sunny weekday afternoon in September 2020, four members of the Metropolitan Police Department’s Gun Recovery Unit climbed out of their unmarked cars and approached a group of ten Black men on a sidewalk in northwest Washington, D.C. One of the officers asked 25-year-old Donte Carter if he had a gun on him. Carter, who was leaning against a parked car, said no, and lifted his shirt—twice—to show his empty waistband.
The police, however, had follow-up questions: The same officer asked Carter to hike up his pants, and when Carter did so, another officer noticed an L-shaped “bulge” in his shorts. Based on that observation, the cops frisked Carter and found a handgun. He was charged with an array of gun-related crimes, convicted, and sentenced to 14 months in prison.
Before his trial, Carter filed a motion to suppress the gun as evidence. His argument was that police had “seized” him within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, at the moment the officer told him to hike up his pants, since, as a young Black man, ignoring armed cops from a unit infamous for racial profiling wasn’t a viable option for Carter. And because the police had no reason to suspect him of anything at that time—again, he was just standing on the sidewalk, and had already shown that his waistband was empty—Carter argued that the officers had no grounds to search him.
The trial court rejected his argument, finding that Carter was not seized until after he hiked up his pants, and that the bulge the officer (allegedly) saw provided the reasonable suspicion necessary to frisk him. But in August 2025, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Court of Appeals threw out his conviction. As the court explained, the test for whether a defendant is “seized” is whether an “objective and reasonable person in the defendant’s shoes” would have felt free to end the conversation with police—an analysis that requires the court to consider, among many other factors, the “objective reality that people of color face during interactions with law enforcement.”
The police, however, had follow-up questions: The same officer asked Carter to hike up his pants, and when Carter did so, another officer noticed an L-shaped “bulge” in his shorts. Based on that observation, the cops frisked Carter and found a handgun. He was charged with an array of gun-related crimes, convicted, and sentenced to 14 months in prison.
Before his trial, Carter filed a motion to suppress the gun as evidence. His argument was that police had “seized” him within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, at the moment the officer told him to hike up his pants, since, as a young Black man, ignoring armed cops from a unit infamous for racial profiling wasn’t a viable option for Carter. And because the police had no reason to suspect him of anything at that time—again, he was just standing on the sidewalk, and had already shown that his waistband was empty—Carter argued that the officers had no grounds to search him.
The trial court rejected his argument, finding that Carter was not seized until after he hiked up his pants, and that the bulge the officer (allegedly) saw provided the reasonable suspicion necessary to frisk him. But in August 2025, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Court of Appeals threw out his conviction. As the court explained, the test for whether a defendant is “seized” is whether an “objective and reasonable person in the defendant’s shoes” would have felt free to end the conversation with police—an analysis that requires the court to consider, among many other factors, the “objective reality that people of color face during interactions with law enforcement.”
Here's something from a long, bad week at the Supreme Court that you might have missed: Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas arguing that under the "color-blind" Constitution, judges and juries have to pretend that police abuse of Black people does not exist
— Jay Willis (@jaywillis.net) 2026-06-27T14:22:52.664Z
June 27, 2026
The Supreme Court's Era of Meaningless Rights - Leah Litman
Gift Link
The Atlantic
The six Republican appointees on the Supreme Court have made one thing clear: People may have rights, but in many cases they have no way to enforce them. Four decisions released this week have that paradox at their core.
Two of them, both issued Tuesday, held that the plaintiffs lacked “causes of action”—the legal authorization to sue to vindicate their federal rights. In Cisco v. Doe, practitioners of the Falun Gong religion claimed that they were persecuted by the Chinese government and that Cisco’s surveillance technology helped China identify and torture them. The six Republican appointees said the victims could not sue Cisco under the Alien Tort Statute, a law enacted in 1789 that allows “any civil action by an alien for a tort” that is “committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” In another case, Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections, a Rastafarian prisoner had attempted to sue the correctional officers who had forcibly held him down and shaved his dreadlocks—in violation of his religious practices—after he had handed them a judicial decision telling them they could not do so. Here the six Republican appointees said that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act does not allow people to bring claims for money damages against the individual correctional officers who are subject to the act’s obligations.
In both of these cases, the majority ruled expansively, issuing sweeping legal proclamations that will have serious consequences for people whose rights are violated. In Cisco, the justices didn’t just say that Falun Gong practitioners couldn’t sue a corporation for enabling their torture. They said that courts could not recognize any causes of action under the Alien Tort Statute for violations of the law of nations that did not exist when the statute was enacted in 1789. It is up to Congress to authorize causes of action for newly recognized features of the law of nations, even though Congress had already created a cause of action for violations of the law of nations—the Alien Tort Statute itself. The Court’s decision will bar suits by victims of any human-rights abuses, because human-rights protections became part of international law in the 20th century.
Landor did to another set of legal protections—spending-clause statutes—what Cisco did to international law. Spending-clause statutes are the set of laws in which Congress has offered states money, provided that the states adhere to various conditions. In Landor, the condition was that states would agree to respect the religious-freedom rights of incarcerated people. The majority in Landor said that the conditions in those spending programs generally couldn’t be enforced against the state officers who are supposedly bound by those conditions. The Court said Congress didn’t have the power to impose liability on the individual government employees who didn’t personally agree to comply with the conditions that are part of the spending programs—and that state and local governments agree to when they accept federal funds.
Two of them, both issued Tuesday, held that the plaintiffs lacked “causes of action”—the legal authorization to sue to vindicate their federal rights. In Cisco v. Doe, practitioners of the Falun Gong religion claimed that they were persecuted by the Chinese government and that Cisco’s surveillance technology helped China identify and torture them. The six Republican appointees said the victims could not sue Cisco under the Alien Tort Statute, a law enacted in 1789 that allows “any civil action by an alien for a tort” that is “committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” In another case, Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections, a Rastafarian prisoner had attempted to sue the correctional officers who had forcibly held him down and shaved his dreadlocks—in violation of his religious practices—after he had handed them a judicial decision telling them they could not do so. Here the six Republican appointees said that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act does not allow people to bring claims for money damages against the individual correctional officers who are subject to the act’s obligations.
In both of these cases, the majority ruled expansively, issuing sweeping legal proclamations that will have serious consequences for people whose rights are violated. In Cisco, the justices didn’t just say that Falun Gong practitioners couldn’t sue a corporation for enabling their torture. They said that courts could not recognize any causes of action under the Alien Tort Statute for violations of the law of nations that did not exist when the statute was enacted in 1789. It is up to Congress to authorize causes of action for newly recognized features of the law of nations, even though Congress had already created a cause of action for violations of the law of nations—the Alien Tort Statute itself. The Court’s decision will bar suits by victims of any human-rights abuses, because human-rights protections became part of international law in the 20th century.
Landor did to another set of legal protections—spending-clause statutes—what Cisco did to international law. Spending-clause statutes are the set of laws in which Congress has offered states money, provided that the states adhere to various conditions. In Landor, the condition was that states would agree to respect the religious-freedom rights of incarcerated people. The majority in Landor said that the conditions in those spending programs generally couldn’t be enforced against the state officers who are supposedly bound by those conditions. The Court said Congress didn’t have the power to impose liability on the individual government employees who didn’t personally agree to comply with the conditions that are part of the spending programs—and that state and local governments agree to when they accept federal funds.
I'm in The Atlantic on the Supreme Court's cases from this past week - which allow corporations to enforce their rights but ... almost no one else?
— Leah Litman (@leahlitman.bsky.social) 2026-06-26T17:56:10.985Z
www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/0...
June 27, 2026
The Supreme Court's Era of Meaningless Rights - Leah Litman
Gift Link
The Atlantic
The six Republican appointees on the Supreme Court have made one thing clear: People may have rights, but in many cases they have no way to enforce them. Four decisions released this week have that paradox at their core.
Two of them, both issued Tuesday, held that the plaintiffs lacked “causes of action”—the legal authorization to sue to vindicate their federal rights. In Cisco v. Doe, practitioners of the Falun Gong religion claimed that they were persecuted by the Chinese government and that Cisco’s surveillance technology helped China identify and torture them. The six Republican appointees said the victims could not sue Cisco under the Alien Tort Statute, a law enacted in 1789 that allows “any civil action by an alien for a tort” that is “committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” In another case, Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections, a Rastafarian prisoner had attempted to sue the correctional officers who had forcibly held him down and shaved his dreadlocks—in violation of his religious practices—after he had handed them a judicial decision telling them they could not do so. Here the six Republican appointees said that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act does not allow people to bring claims for money damages against the individual correctional officers who are subject to the act’s obligations.
In both of these cases, the majority ruled expansively, issuing sweeping legal proclamations that will have serious consequences for people whose rights are violated. In Cisco, the justices didn’t just say that Falun Gong practitioners couldn’t sue a corporation for enabling their torture. They said that courts could not recognize any causes of action under the Alien Tort Statute for violations of the law of nations that did not exist when the statute was enacted in 1789. It is up to Congress to authorize causes of action for newly recognized features of the law of nations, even though Congress had already created a cause of action for violations of the law of nations—the Alien Tort Statute itself. The Court’s decision will bar suits by victims of any human-rights abuses, because human-rights protections became part of international law in the 20th century.
Landor did to another set of legal protections—spending-clause statutes—what Cisco did to international law. Spending-clause statutes are the set of laws in which Congress has offered states money, provided that the states adhere to various conditions. In Landor, the condition was that states would agree to respect the religious-freedom rights of incarcerated people. The majority in Landor said that the conditions in those spending programs generally couldn’t be enforced against the state officers who are supposedly bound by those conditions. The Court said Congress didn’t have the power to impose liability on the individual government employees who didn’t personally agree to comply with the conditions that are part of the spending programs—and that state and local governments agree to when they accept federal funds.
Two of them, both issued Tuesday, held that the plaintiffs lacked “causes of action”—the legal authorization to sue to vindicate their federal rights. In Cisco v. Doe, practitioners of the Falun Gong religion claimed that they were persecuted by the Chinese government and that Cisco’s surveillance technology helped China identify and torture them. The six Republican appointees said the victims could not sue Cisco under the Alien Tort Statute, a law enacted in 1789 that allows “any civil action by an alien for a tort” that is “committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” In another case, Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections, a Rastafarian prisoner had attempted to sue the correctional officers who had forcibly held him down and shaved his dreadlocks—in violation of his religious practices—after he had handed them a judicial decision telling them they could not do so. Here the six Republican appointees said that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act does not allow people to bring claims for money damages against the individual correctional officers who are subject to the act’s obligations.
In both of these cases, the majority ruled expansively, issuing sweeping legal proclamations that will have serious consequences for people whose rights are violated. In Cisco, the justices didn’t just say that Falun Gong practitioners couldn’t sue a corporation for enabling their torture. They said that courts could not recognize any causes of action under the Alien Tort Statute for violations of the law of nations that did not exist when the statute was enacted in 1789. It is up to Congress to authorize causes of action for newly recognized features of the law of nations, even though Congress had already created a cause of action for violations of the law of nations—the Alien Tort Statute itself. The Court’s decision will bar suits by victims of any human-rights abuses, because human-rights protections became part of international law in the 20th century.
Landor did to another set of legal protections—spending-clause statutes—what Cisco did to international law. Spending-clause statutes are the set of laws in which Congress has offered states money, provided that the states adhere to various conditions. In Landor, the condition was that states would agree to respect the religious-freedom rights of incarcerated people. The majority in Landor said that the conditions in those spending programs generally couldn’t be enforced against the state officers who are supposedly bound by those conditions. The Court said Congress didn’t have the power to impose liability on the individual government employees who didn’t personally agree to comply with the conditions that are part of the spending programs—and that state and local governments agree to when they accept federal funds.
I'm in The Atlantic on the Supreme Court's cases from this past week - which allow corporations to enforce their rights but ... almost no one else?
— Leah Litman (@leahlitman.bsky.social) 2026-06-26T17:56:10.985Z
www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/0...
June 26, 2026
In this exclusive Opinionpalooza extra, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern take stock of today’s truly horrendous decisions handed down by a right-wing Supreme Court supermajority that’s marching in perfect lockstep on immigration, gun rights, and almost everything else. Dahlia and Mark sort through the brutalizing, even lethal implications for asylum seekers and more than 1 million recipients of temporary protected status, or TPS.
Alito Delivered Three Atrocious Opinions in a Row (with Mark Joseph Stern) - Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick
In this exclusive Opinionpalooza extra, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern take stock of today’s truly horrendous decisions handed down by a right-wing Supreme Court supermajority that’s marching in perfect lockstep on immigration, gun rights, and almost everything else. Dahlia and Mark sort through the brutalizing, even lethal implications for asylum seekers and more than 1 million recipients of temporary protected status, or TPS.
June 25, 2026
Hasan sits down with law professor and host of @strictscrutinypodcast Kate Shaw, to discuss the shadow docket, the gutting of the Voting Rights Act, and a few other ways the Supreme Court is f***ing up the country.
How The Supreme Court is F**king up the Country (with Kate Shaw) - Hasan Minhaj
Hasan sits down with law professor and host of @strictscrutinypodcast Kate Shaw, to discuss the shadow docket, the gutting of the Voting Rights Act, and a few other ways the Supreme Court is f***ing up the country.
June 25, 2026
The Supreme Court handed down two 6-3 immigration rulings, both written by Justice Alito, gutting protections for asylum seekers and TPS holders. Melissa, Kate, and Leah break down what the Court did, why Sotomayor warned "more people will die," and Alito's rare off-the-cuff rebuttal from the bench.
Chapters:
0:00 Introduction
2:27 The Asylum Case
7:45 Sotomayor's Dissent & Holocaust Parallels
8:55 Alito's Unprecedented Bench Response
14:57 Ad Break
20:05 The TPS Case
23:22 Racial Animus & The Court's Double Standard
29:19 Kagan's Dissent
33:14 Court Culture Corner: Clarence Thomas
34:35 Closing
BREAKING: SCOTUS Sides with Trump in MAJOR Decision - Strict Scrutiny Podcast
The Supreme Court handed down two 6-3 immigration rulings, both written by Justice Alito, gutting protections for asylum seekers and TPS holders. Melissa, Kate, and Leah break down what the Court did, why Sotomayor warned "more people will die," and Alito's rare off-the-cuff rebuttal from the bench.
Chapters:
0:00 Introduction
2:27 The Asylum Case
7:45 Sotomayor's Dissent & Holocaust Parallels
8:55 Alito's Unprecedented Bench Response
14:57 Ad Break
20:05 The TPS Case
23:22 Racial Animus & The Court's Double Standard
29:19 Kagan's Dissent
33:14 Court Culture Corner: Clarence Thomas
34:35 Closing
June 25, 2026
The Supreme Court Is a Pro-Gun Activist Group - Balls and Strikes
https://ballsandstrikes.org/scotus/wolford-v-lopez-the-supreme-court-is-a-pro-gun-activist-group/Whenever the Supreme Court’s six-justice conservative supermajority issues a high-stakes decision, the majority opinion’s author always strains to make one point clear: that all they are doing is faithfully interpreting the Constitution, and that they are not (and would never) purposefully warp its meaning to further their policy agenda.
Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion in Wolford v. Lopez is no different. In Wolford, which the Court decided on Thursday, the six conservatives voted to strike down a Hawaii law that requires people to obtain consent from owners of private property—shops, restaurants, and so on—before bringing guns on the premises. This restriction, Alito wrote, is inconsistent with the “historical” understanding of the right the Framers designed the Second Amendment to protect. Scrupulous fidelity to the norms of that era, he continued, is essential in order to avoid what is, in his mind, the single worst thing a modern court can do: engage in an “interest-balancing inquiry” that “empowers” judges to rewrite the Constitution as they see fit.
The premise here—that hyper-focusing on the “history and tradition” of American firearms regulation is the correct way to Do Law, Not Politics—has always been a lie. But it is an especially obvious lie today, when, just four years after creating a new test for deciding Second Amendment cases, the conservatives have (again) reimagined it to strike down (another) gun safety law enacted by the people’s elected representatives to keep their constituents safe.
What Wolford makes clear, wrote Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in a dissent joined by the other two liberals, is that “the Court’s objective is protecting guns, not consistently preserving any rule of law.” The history-and-tradition approach, she concluded, is a “free-for-all” system that allows judges to “thwart the will of legislatures by privileging access to firearms above all else.”
Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion in Wolford v. Lopez is no different. In Wolford, which the Court decided on Thursday, the six conservatives voted to strike down a Hawaii law that requires people to obtain consent from owners of private property—shops, restaurants, and so on—before bringing guns on the premises. This restriction, Alito wrote, is inconsistent with the “historical” understanding of the right the Framers designed the Second Amendment to protect. Scrupulous fidelity to the norms of that era, he continued, is essential in order to avoid what is, in his mind, the single worst thing a modern court can do: engage in an “interest-balancing inquiry” that “empowers” judges to rewrite the Constitution as they see fit.
The premise here—that hyper-focusing on the “history and tradition” of American firearms regulation is the correct way to Do Law, Not Politics—has always been a lie. But it is an especially obvious lie today, when, just four years after creating a new test for deciding Second Amendment cases, the conservatives have (again) reimagined it to strike down (another) gun safety law enacted by the people’s elected representatives to keep their constituents safe.
What Wolford makes clear, wrote Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in a dissent joined by the other two liberals, is that “the Court’s objective is protecting guns, not consistently preserving any rule of law.” The history-and-tradition approach, she concluded, is a “free-for-all” system that allows judges to “thwart the will of legislatures by privileging access to firearms above all else.”
A throughline of Sam Alito's jurisprudence is that the law protects conservatives from getting their feelings hurt. Here, he says Hawaii's gun licensing law is unconstitutional because it forces business owners who are fine with guns to risk "alienating other customers." Straight-up policy choice.
— Jay Willis (@jaywillis.net) 2026-06-25T15:56:18.662Z
Genuinely funny for Alito to end his opinion in this case by (1) talking about how important it is to protect the rights of Black people and (2) footnoting to Eric Foner's "The Second Founding," a book I would bet a substantial sum that Alito has not and will never read
— Jay Willis (@jaywillis.net) 2026-06-25T16:05:24.609Z
June 25, 2026
BREAKING: The Supreme Court rules 6-3 in favor of the Trump admin on Temporary Protected Status
The final SCOTUS opinion today is Mullin v. Doe. Alito has the 6-3 opinion, holding that the temporary protected status statute bars court review of non-constitutional claims and the Haiti plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed in their equal protection claim. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...
— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) 2026-06-25T14:26:01.660Z
The Supreme Court of the United States has concluded, as a matter of law, that Donald Trump and his administration's racism and vitriol toward Haitians—in its termination of TPS—is not "overtly racial."
— Cristian Farias (@cristianfarias.com) 2026-06-25T14:34:13.808Z
Justice Kagan, in dissent, calls them out:
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...
BREAKING: The Supreme Court rules 6-3 in favor of the Trump admin on Temporary Protected Status, blocking the lawsuit on jurisdictional grounds, allowing DHS to strip over 350,000 people of legal status even though they utterly failed to follow the required legal procedures.
— Aaron Reichlin-Melnick (@reichlinmelnick.bsky.social) 2026-06-25T14:25:39.067Z
The Supreme Court ALSO gives Trump another pass on racism, declaring that his horrific and bigoted comments against Haitians are actually not evidence of racism and that the plaintiffs cannot show evidence of racial bias, essentially plugging their ears and letting Trump spew filth as policy.
— Aaron Reichlin-Melnick (@reichlinmelnick.bsky.social) 2026-06-25T14:34:33.058Z
Fourth (and *last*) ruling from #SCOTUS is in TPS.
— Steve Vladeck (@stevevladeck.bsky.social) 2026-06-25T14:24:02.124Z
For the usual 6-3 majority, Justice Alito holds that federal law forecloses judicial review of statutory challenges to the executive branch's termination of temporary protected status for Haiti, Syria, etc.:
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...
With seven decisions with the *same* 6-3 lineup over the last three days, I really can't wait for all of the hot takes from the folks who keep insisting that #SCOTUS *isn't* defined by its ideological division.
— Steve Vladeck (@stevevladeck.bsky.social) 2026-06-25T14:34:44.884Z
Profile Information
Member since: Sun May 27, 2018, 06:53 PMNumber of posts: 12,904