All posts tagged "john roberts"

Trump's 'embarrassing loss' just a 'smoke screen' for John Roberts: analyst

The Supreme Court's rejection of President Donald Trump's request for a rehearing to overturn writer E. Jean Carroll's $5 million civil judgment against him after a jury found he sexually abused and defamed her can't undo a string of court rulings that had favored the president, an analyst argued.

Salon's Alex Galbraith discussed on Wednesday how Chief Justice John Roberts and other justices handed Trump a rare loss — and "smoke screen."

Galbraith compared the Supreme Court to the Harlem Globetrotters performances, "getting caught up in the magic circle that surrounds Trump’s actions as president."

"The Court is free to play-act at being a check on Trump’s power, so long as the majority of Americans consider it a legitimate body," Galbraith wrote. "Keeping that ruse going is crucial for the aims of the wider right-wing project. And to do that, the conservative majority can’t just rubber stamp every last thing this president does."

This week's decision won't erase other wins the high court has handed Trump.

"By handing Trump a highly publicized and embarrassing loss on an issue that doesn’t hamper Republicans’ agenda, the conservative justices are continuing their smoke screen by reinforcing the Court’s legitimacy as an impartial body at a time when they’re more captured by partisan politics than ever," Galbraith wrote. "Occasionally ruling against the president keeps up the charade."

"Trump might have been sent packing this time, but don’t expect his foils on the Court to go on a winning streak," Galbraith added. "SCOTUS will be back to their regularly scheduled losing soon enough."

Supreme Court quietly winning its own war as Trump's losses make headlines: expert

The Supreme Court's high-profile losses for President Donald Trump obscure a longer game the justices are quietly winning, a legal expert warned.

In a recent piece for The Atlantic, University of Chicago law professor Aziz Huq argued that the Supreme Court's recent defeats for Trump on birthright citizenship and global tariffs shouldn't be read as a "moderate turn" or a sign of "true independence."

Huq contended that the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice John Roberts is following a plan of "deep constitutional change" that will "transform the First Amendment, eviscerate the equal-protection clause, and recalibrate the Constitution's balance of powers."

Trump only wins when his vision aligns with the Roberts Court's, Huq argued, adding that "the justices have little patience for impulsive, erratic swerves by a president who will be gone in three years, especially when accommodating his whims undermines their longer-term constitutional vision."

According to Huq, Roberts wrote the Citizens United v. FEC decision, years before Trump took office, to interpret the First Amendment to invalidate limits on corporate election spending. That was advanced this term with National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC, which invalidated long-standing laws limiting parties' spending in coordination with candidates, Huq noted.

Huq sounded the alarm on the Roberts Court's moves against the Fourteenth Amendment's equal-protection clause, writing that it's "being repurposed to do the opposite of what it was intended." Huq noted that the Roberts Court is moving against equal protection and "essentially neutered" the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

He also warned that the court "gave the president near-absolute power to fire officers," and "as a result, Congress can no longer create offices to durably pursue statutory goals regardless of who's in the Oval Office."

John Roberts laid a trap to spring on the next president he dislikes: legal experts

Legal experts warned that a recent ruling from the Supreme Court is a trap for future presidents disliked by Chief Justice John Roberts.

During an episode of Slate's Amicus podcast, the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Slaughter, which lets Trump fire the heads of independent federal agencies, was flagged as a one-sided gift that will snap shut the moment a Democrat returns to the White House.

Sam Bagenstos, a University of Michigan law professor, predicted on the podcast that the Supreme Court would uphold a future Democratic president firing Trump appointees and cite Slaughter to do it. But the catch will be that when those new appointees try to act, the court "would also find other ways to rein in that Democratic president's power."

Bagenstos specifically sounded the alarm on the major-questions doctrine, which lets justices strike down policies even though statutory text supported them. Bagenstos noted that during the Biden administration, the Roberts court used that doctrine to "stop Biden from using statutes according to their text to achieve relatively progressive outcomes when the court didn't like those outcomes."

He added, "There are all sorts of other ways in which an activist Republican court can rein in an activist progressive president that don't require using this particular tool," referring to the major-questions doctrine, which Bagenstos called a "very powerful tool" for the Roberts court.

"It's great for the next Democratic president that they'll be able to fire the Trump appointees in the Federal Trade Commission and the National Labor Relations Board and whatever," Bagenstos said, listing independent federal agencies. "But then, when their new appointees try to actually get something done, what they're going to find out is that the courts are standing in their way."

Supreme Court poised to gut century-old law to expand Trump's power: legal analyst

The Supreme Court is expected to gut a century-old legal precedent and expand Trump's power over independent agencies, per a legal expert.

Lisa Graves, a legal investigative researcher and Chief Justice John Roberts biographer, warned in a recent piece about how SCOTUS will rule in Trump v. Slaughter later this month. She fears the court will overturn Humphrey's Executor, the 1931 precedent that bars presidents from firing Federal Trade Commission commissioners without cause.

"This is a choice—an illegitimate one—not a necessity or requirement of the law, no matter what John Roberts and his fellow Republican appointees on the Supreme Court may claim," Graves wrote. "Their edict will be dressed up in the language of 'separation of powers,' but that is merely a costume for this extraordinary power grab."

The Trump v. Slaughter case stems from Trump's firing last year of Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, the FTC's two Democratic commissioners. Lower courts initially reinstated Slaughter, but the Supreme Court intervened through its shadow docket to keep her off the commission while the case proceeded, according to Graves.

Trump's case for firing the two commissioners was based on the unitary executive theory, and claims that all executive power "vests" in him, allowing him to "fire anyone in the executive branch at any time for any reason or no reason at all," Graves explained.

The Supreme Court ruling in Trump's favor would uphold that claim. She pointed to real-world consequences, noting that the FTC has dropped more than three dozen merger investigations since Slaughter's firing, including into a $32 billion acquisition by Google of the startup Wiz.

JD Vance's wife breaks with Trump over president's assault on Supreme Court

Second lady Usha Vance was speaking out this week about how Supreme Court justices deserve "respect" as President Donald Trump has continued lashing out at the high court.

In an interview with ABC on Monday night, Vance told anchor Linsey Davis her thoughts about the Supreme Court justices amid the onslaught of Trump assaults, "sparking concerns about a potential constitutional crisis," The Daily Beast reported.

Vance, who is married to Vice President JD Vance, previously clerked for Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, according to The Beast.

"I have a lot of respect for the justices," Vance said. "I think that they have a hard and challenging job being in the public eye, just like a lot of other people in Congress, in the media, in the executive branch. So I do want people to treat them with respect."

"I think that there has been a lot of personalization of feelings towards judges and the courts across the country that probably didn’t exist, you know, 150 years ago when they were less in the public eye," Vance said.

And although she did not say his name, she appeared to allude to Trump's berating of the justices.

"So I’m hopeful that people will continue to treat them with a sense of humanity and, you know, without the kind of anger that’s led to some attacks on judges," Vance said.

Roberts has signaled his concerns about Trump's personal attacks on justices, including the president's frustration with the high court after it struck down his tariff policy in February. At the time, Trump called the justices "disloyal," "unpatriotic," and "fools," The Beast reported.

Trump has specifically targeted Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett with his outrage. He appointed both conservative justices and has expressed frustration that they have gone against his wishes in major court decisions, according to The Beast.

James Carville loses it on 'clown' John Roberts in vulgar takedown

Political strategist James Carville didn't pull any punches when weighing in on the Supreme Court's latest decision on redistricting and targeted one justice in particular.

"Way to go, John Roberts. What a [expletive] clown," Carville said on the Politicon podcast this week. "What a partisan hack clown."

Carville reacted harshly to the Supreme Court's 6-3 decision that weakened protections in the Voting Rights Act against racial gerrymandering and described the whole bench as "corrupt" in a curse-filled tirade.

"There is no reason, none, that you should have any respect or any admiration for this pack of people who take money from anybody, don't report anything, are the only nine people in the entire [expletive] federal government that operate under no ethic rule," he fumed. "A private in the army is subject to more ethics regulations than the nine justices on the Supreme Court."

He warned that "you have to obey because they'll throw your ass in jail, but you don't have to respect them."

He had more ire reserved for the conservative justices in particular, calling Justice Samuel Alito "a political hack" and reminding people about his luxury fishing vacations.

"These sons of [expletive] were so political, so happy to help the Republican Party any way they could," Carville said. "They wrote a convoluted decision that legal scholars are still trying to wander through to think what the [expletive] was the rationale for this."

John Roberts warned he just left 'huge asterisk on his legacy in such a bad way'

Legal experts blasted Chief Justice John Roberts for his part in weakening the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and its ability to block discrimination when district maps are drawn.

"For Chief Justice John Roberts, this is a huge asterisk on his legacy in such a bad way," journalist and lawyer Katie Phang said during an interview for the Contrarian with lawyer and professor Leah Litman. "He has had a series of really not good asterisks next to his name, but this, I think, is one of the biggest ones."

The 6-3 decision on Louisiana v. Callais came down on Wednesday. Phang described the decision as "clearing the way for the GOP to racially gerrymander us back to the days of Jim Crow voter suppression."

Litman noted that Roberts "began his career as a lawyer in the Reagan Department of Justice, pushing to limit the Voting Rights Act, pushing against the amendments to the Voting Rights Act that sought to expand its protections to encompass unintentional discrimination."

Roberts "dismantled the other key leg of the Voting Rights Act," as the author of the opinion in the case Shelby County v. Holder, Litman added. "So, yes, he has been able to cultivate this appearance and reputation as an institutionalist. He is a hard-line ideologue on the Voting Rights Act, and always has been."

Litman warned that people should "never, never buy into this narrative that the Republican appointees are just respecting the democratic processes."

She also pointed out that while Justice Samuel Alito penned the majority opinion in Louisiana v. Callais, "Roberts, he is the senior-most justice in this opinion. That meant he had the option of who to assign the opinion to."

Supreme Court signals it may deal Trump major setback in mass deportation crusade

Conservative justices on the Supreme Court showed signs of leaning towards blocking Trump's effort to deport millions of immigrants.

Politico reported on Wednesday that Chief Justice John Roberts and Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett "seemed like possible conservative votes" that will side with advocates for Haitian and Syrian immigrants with Temporary Protected Status (TPS).

More than a million immigrants could avoid deportation if two Supreme Court justices block the Trump administration's efforts to end TPS for Haitians and Syrians, Politico noted.

TPS allowed immigrants from specific countries facing disaster or major unrest to enter the United States. The case that Supreme Court justices heard on Wednesday focused on Haitians and Syrians who lost TPS, but the Trump administration cut access to the program for 11 other countries as well, according to Politico.

Advocates seeking to return TPS access to Haitians and Syrians argue that the Department of Homeland Security and its former head, Kristi Noem, "failed to adequately consult with the State Department before concluding" the program, Politico reported. Advocates argued that DHS should have made sure it was safe for those TPS recipients to return before shutting it down.

Roberts had previously voted down efforts to end Obama-era programs protecting immigrants from deportation. In those votes, he "seized on a flawed process to invalidate the administration moves," Politico noted.

In oral arguments on Wednesday, Barrett asked immigrant advocates how helpful it would be for migrants if the Supreme Court upheld TPS and reversed Noem's move. Advocate Ahilan Arulanantham said that blocking Noem's move would force DHS to consult the State Department on similar moves in the future.

A decision is expected to come down in June, according to Politico.

John Roberts' landmark 2019 decision just backfired spectacularly on GOP: legal analysts

Chief Justice John Roberts paved the way for a major Democratic victory this week with a decision he made at the end of the last decade, political analysts are pointing out.

Justice Roberts delivered a key decision in the 2019 case Rucho v. Common Cause. Roberts siding with conservatives on a 5-4 decision seven years ago kept constitutional limits away from partisan gerrymandering. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern, co-hosts of the Slate legal analysis podcast Amicus, revisited Roberts' decision in their latest episode and explained how the case gave way to a major Democratic victory in Virginia this week, where voters approved a gerrymandered map that opens four House seats.

"There was a lot of Republican bellyaching this week over these results," Lithwick said. "But didn’t the Supreme Court pretty much roll out the red carpet for this kind of electoral hardball with the decision in Rucho v. Common Cause?"

Stern suggested that Roberts "thought this would disproportionately help Republicans over Democrats," but "I doubt he expected states like Virginia to play hardball. But this is exactly what Roberts said he wanted: Let the states decide!"

Madiba Dennie, the deputy editor of Balls and Strikes who appeared on the Amicus episode, called the irony "funny because Republicans could have come together with Democrats at any time and said, 'we're going to end partisan gerrymandering.'"

Instead, Republicans said "we want to rig ourselves a structural advantage," Dennie said. "And now that Democratic voters decided they want a little structural advantage too, Republicans scream and cry."

John Roberts's 1985 memo to his bosses may be the key to stopping Trump

There might be only one way to put an end to President Donald Trump's war in Iran — something Supreme Court Justice John Roberts pointed out years earlier, according to a report Wednesday.

Roberts has been questioned over his views on the unitary executive theory, the idea that the president should have broad control over the government, and Roberts has even helped grant this administration multiple Supreme Court wins. But Roberts previously took a firm stance on how presidents can control the government and who can ultimately stop wars, The Lever reported.

As the United States has entered the 12th day of joint strikes with Israel against Iran, questions have surfaced over who can end the conflict and Roberts had offered a legal basis for war and congressional war powers.

"But in this era of judicial deference to executive authority, Congress’ power to limit spending remains largely unchallenged, even by some of the most hardline proponents of presidential authority, such as U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts," according to The Lever.

"As a Reagan administration lawyer, Roberts told his bosses in 1985, 'Our institutional vigilance with respect to the constitutional prerogatives of the presidency requires appropriate deference to the constitutional prerogatives of the other branches, and no area seems more clearly the province of Congress than the power of the purse,'" The Lever reported.

Congress could throttle Trump's power to continue the conflict.

"This contrast — between the weakness of Congress’s non-budgetary legislation and the supremacy of its spending power — explains why modern presidents’ ill-advised wars tend to only conclude when lawmakers threaten to use the latter," according to The Lever.