All posts tagged "ketanji brown jackson"

Liberal justice scorches Supreme Court colleagues over 'remarkable and regrettable' ruling

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson called out the majority following a 7-2 Supreme Court ruling that sided with pesticide manufacturers and determined the EPA is the arbiter — not state courts — to decide on cancer warnings on labels.

The ruling in Monsanto v. Durnell reversed the Missouri Court of Appeals after John Durnell sued Monsanto in Missouri state court, claiming 20 years of using Roundup, a glyphosate-based herbicide designed to control weeds, caused his non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. He argued Monsanto failed to include a cancer warning on its label. A jury awarded him more than $1 million.

The majority's decision could signal that Roundup cancer plaintiffs nationwide will lose their primary avenue for state tort lawsuits. Their recourse is now limited to petitioning the EPA directly to change its assessment of glyphosate.

In Brown Jackson's dissent, which was joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, she argued that under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the law outlines that registration cannot be used as a defense to a misbranding charge — meaning EPA approval isn't conclusive proof the label is adequate. Missouri's tort duty merely parallels FIFRA's own misbranding prohibition (which requires adequate warnings), so it adds nothing new and shouldn't be preempted.

"The majority reads into FIFRA a labeling requirement that does not exist, and it reads out of FIFRA the statute’s ongoing prohibition on misbranding," Brown Jackson wrote. "This interpretation cannot be squared with the text of FIFRA or our precedents. Ultimately, the effect of the majority’s interpretation is both remarkable and regrettable, for it unjustifiably closes the courthouse doors to state tort plaintiffs like Durnell."

Supreme Court 'blessed' a 'Kafkaesque nightmare' with its 'disturbing' ruling: analysis

A "disturbing" Supreme Court ruling will allow border officials to subject green-card holders to a "Kafkaesque nightmare," per a Slate analysis.

According to the analysis by legal reporter Mark Joseph Stern, the 6-3 Supreme Court vote along usual partisan lines in the case Blanche v. Lau established that border officials don't need "clear and convincing evidence" that green-card holders committed a "crime of moral turpitude" to deny them entry.

The case originates from a lawful permanent resident named Muk Choi Lau, who lost his green card and was paroled into the U.S. after he was accused of selling designer-style shorts with a counterfeit trademark, Stern wrote. Lau argued that the border official shouldn't be able to take his green card and have so much discretion.

Although a lower court agreed with Lau, the Supreme Court tossed that decision with a ruling that Stern described as "egregiously wrong."

Lau was allowed into the United States on parole, but that status puts an immigrant in "legal limbo" and makes them "far more vulnerable to deportation."

Stern brought up Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissenting opinion and echoed her point that by taking a legal permanent resident's green card, it can make it harder for them "to work, open bank accounts, secure housing, obtain health insurance, and enroll in school."

Meanwhile, Stern called out Justice Clarence Thomas's opinion, saying it "blesses one part of the Trump administration's multipronged attack against green-card holders, validating its campaign to revoke these individuals' rights on a whim," and highlighted that Thomas "expressly declined to say what, if any, burden the government bears at the border."

'Stinging dissent!' Ketanji Brown Jackson scolds Supreme Court colleagues

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson rebuked her colleagues on Monday with a solo dissent, saying she "cannot fathom" the majority's decision in a case.

Brown Jackson criticized the high court's decision in the District of Columbia v. R.W. to reverse a lower court decision that said a police officer had violated the Fourth Amendment by stopping a person without reasonable suspicion, MS NOW reported. The justices wrote in an unsigned per curiam opinion that the D.C. appeals court's previous ruling had failed to consider the "totality of circumstances."

In the dissent, she referred to the “assessment of which particular facts to weigh and to what extent, I cannot fathom why that kind of factbound determination warranted correction by this Court.”

Jonathan Turley, law professor, columnist and analyst, described the scolding dissent.

"Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has issued another sole stinging dissent. In a 7-2 decision (with liberal justice Elena Kagan joining the majority), the Court upheld the authority of police to make a stop based on the totality of the circumstances..." Turley wrote on X. "Jackson wrote that 'I cannot fathom' how the seven justices could second-guess the lower court in rejecting the police claims. She accused her colleagues of mere "wordsmithing." Just for the record, it would be useful to review those words..."

The justice appeared to call out her colleagues' decisions.

"Even if I would have assigned more heft to a particular fact in my own first-instance assessment, I would not wordsmith a lower court in this fashion. In my view, this is not a worthy accomplishment for the unusual step of summary reversal. Therefore, I respectfully dissent," Brown Jackson wrote.

'I cannot abide': Biting dissent blasts Supreme Court for 'plainly misjudging' case

Reactions rolled in Friday after liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered a scathing dissent of the majority conservative U.S. Supreme Court's latest decision, with some saying it told lower courts they have "absolutely no power over the executive branch."

Brown Jackson called the high court's decision to remove legal protections for more than 300,000 immigrants from Venezuela "repeated, gratuitous, and harmful interference."

"I view today’s decision as yet another grave misuse of our emergency docket. This Court should have stayed its hand. Having opted instead to join the fray, the Court plainly misjudges the irreparable harm and balance-of-the-equities factors by privileging the bald assertion of unconstrained executive power over countless families’ pleas for the stability our Government has promised them," Jackson wrote in her dissent Friday.

"Because, respectfully, I cannot abide our repeated, gratuitous, and harmful interference with cases pending in the lower courts while lives hang in the balance, I dissent," she wrote.

Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, who are also in the liberal minority of the high court, opposed the majority's decision.

Social media users sounded off on the ruling.

"SCOTUS again reminds lower courts they have absolutely no power over the executive branch," a user named Martin M. wrote via X.

"For the most part SCOTUS has been a solid backstop upholding the Constitution and rule of law, especially as it relates to the Executive branch article II powers," user Jericho wrote on X.

But some sided with the conservative majority's decision.

"They can. Nuclear option is easy. Democrats did it to confirm judges, then Republicans used the rule change to confirm SCOTUS judges. In essence, we can thank Democrats for Republicans having full control of SCOTUS," Ricky Lucero wrote on X.

"SCOTUS will stand with POTUS. Why do liberals want to flood the country with illegals," a user named Heather wrote on X.

Liberal justice gives ominous answer when asked 'What keeps you up at night?'

Liberal Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson gave an ominous answer when asked at an Indianapolis Bar Association event on Thursday, "What keeps you up at night?"

According to CNN, Jackson responded, "I would say the state of our democracy," adding, "I am really very interested in getting people to focus and to invest and to pay attention to what is happening in our country and in our government.”

Jackson did not go into detail about "what, specifically, concerned her about the state of democracy," CNN reported, "though she has recently written a series of scathing dissents critical of both President Donald Trump’s administration and the Supreme Court’s review of cases involving its policies."

Jackson wrote the dissent this week in the court's decision to allow Trump's mass firings to continue in the federal workforce. “For some reason, this court sees fit to step in now and release the president’s wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation," Jackson wrote. "In my view, this decision is not only truly unfortunate but also hubristic and senseless.”

Jackson also wrote a "scorching" dissent in last month's birthright citizenship decision, preventing lower courts from issuing injunctions that blocked Trump's policies.

“Perhaps the degradation of our rule-of-law regime would happen anyway,” Jackson wrote. “But this court’s complicity in the creation of a culture of disdain for lower courts, their rulings, and the law (as they interpret it) will surely hasten the downfall of our governing institutions, enabling our collective demise.”

Jackson signed off, citing her “deep disillusionment.”

Read the CNN story here.

Trump has his fat little foot on Lady Liberty’s throat

It’s been another brutal week in a brutal country. There’s no sense candy-coating it.

Thanks to a loaded, radical-right Supreme Court that believes in monarchies, not democracy — a group of robed anti-Americans led around by the nose and on lavish vacations by the billionaires who own them — a convicted felon who regards the truth as his mortal enemy now has the power he needs to wage war on the citizens of this country he pillages for his gain.

We are well on our way to becoming the brutal authoritarian country you used to see on TV and say, "Damn, thank God I don't live there ..."

Things are going to keep getting worse until (and if) we can put a stop to it, good people. Could be it’s already too late: we are a full-blown authoritarian country.

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson knows full well the trouble we’re in, and offered this clear-eyed dissent Friday against the high court limiting federal judges’ ability to halt the fascist Trump’s hateful executive orders nationwide:

“The court’s decision to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law.”

AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT …

She wasn’t done:

“It is important to recognize that the Executive’s bid to vanquish so-called ‘universal injunctions’ is, at bottom, a request for this Court’s permission to engage in unlawful behavior. When the Government says “do not allow the lower courts to enjoin executive action universally as a remedy for unconstitutional conduct,” what it is actually saying is that the Executive wants to continue doing something that a court has determined violates the Constitution — please allow this. That is some solicitation. With its ruling today, the majority largely grants the Government’s wish. But, in my view, if this country is going to persist as a Nation of laws and not men, the Judiciary has no choice but to deny it.”

In other words, Trump, the convicted felon … the guy who lies as he breathes … can pretty much ignore any law he doesn’t like.

I really don’t know if after this ruling granting Trump a king’s unchecked powers we will make it to the midterms, which are an endless 17 months away. It isn’t hard to imagine Trump ginning up some crisis and then smothering us in executive orders to halt our elections.

And if you think I’m going too far here, I think you are the problem.

Democrats and/or the opposition to GOP fascism need to be articulating what is at stake right now and emulating Justice Jackson’s courage and conviction. Everybody needs to understand we have entered the beginning of the end of a country where the people used to have the power.

And this is going to get so much damn worse so damn fast …

In my piece last week, We just got a deafening message — ignore it at your peril I warned Democrats of all shapes and sizes that if we make it to the midterms “there is going to be some serious bloodletting at the polls in 2026.”

I added for emphasis: “There will be no such thing as a 'safe' seat anywhere, because America is not a safe country right now. People are scared.”

I concluded: “Nothing motivates voters more than fear and anger, and the politician who doesn’t understand that, better be prepared to find some real work.”

Well, what do you know, guys like Andrew Cuomo aren’t hearing this message. After getting smacked at the polls in New York City’s mayoral primary, word is out that he will stay in the race and run as an alternative to the guy who thrashed him, Zohran Mamdani.

Cuomo is doing this because he’s an arrogant, privileged punk given license and a long leash by the Democratic elite who are completely out of touch with the American voter.

Rather than congratulate Mamdani, and tell him he will do everything he can to help him get elected, Cuomo's going to fight him. This is why so many people argue there’s really not much difference in America’s two major parties these days, and why I take heart most people aren’t affiliated with either one of them.

That last part might be exactly what saves us ...

In closing, I want to take you back to an ancient time, one year ago today.

Back then, a decent, hardworking guy named Joe Biden was our president and he was getting relentlessly hammered by our press, Republicans, and a disenchanted electorate for his inability to completely correct the dreadful economy he inherited from the guy who had attacked the country four years earlier — a guy by the name of Donald Trump.

It was the No.1 issue on the board for the majority of American voters, whose hair was on fire about high prices and inflation.

Well, we know how that election turned out.

As I was guzzling coffee and rifling through several newspapers this morning, I came across this story shoehorned onto the bottom of Page 10 of my local paper here in Madison, Wisconsin:

Turns out, things have gotten worse for the America consumer, not better, but nobody is talking about it anymore, because King Crud and his Crooked Court have given us 20 others things to worry about instead, including our survival.

Our press is flailing, and chasing danger instead of warning us about it.

This is chaos by design, with the goal of unsteadying us, and pushing us all toward surrender. The morbidly obese orange moron has his fat little foot on Lady Liberty’s throat and wants us all to just up and quit.

Well, I’m too goddam mad for that, AND WILL NOT SUBMIT to this clown or his bought-off court.

I am raging and sounding the alarms. I am done looking for leaders where they are supposed to be, and perfectly happy to find ‘em right here in this space.

I say let’s be the answer, and kick some ass.

People. Not parties.

Enough Already.

(D. Earl Stephens is the author of “Toxic Tales: A Caustic Collection of Donald J. Trump’s Very Important Letters” and finished up a 30-year career in journalism as the Managing Editor of Stars and Stripes. You can find all his work here.)

'Big time': CNN host declares 'enormous' victory for Trump in Supreme Court case

CNN's Paula Reid couldn't emphasize enough what a huge win the U.S. Supreme Court birthright citizenship decision was for the Trump administration.

On Friday, the court ruled 6-3 that universal injunctions were improper and exceeded the power of the federal courts. This means the lower courts must now "fight out" citizenship issues.

"This is enormous," Reid exclaimed. "This is as yet another huge win for President Trump from this conservative supermajority."

Reid said DOJ lawyers told her that "even though a lot of their policies were getting bogged down in the lower courts, that anything they could get in front of this high court, that they would ultimately win. They were playing a long game. And this decision right here, this is proof that this long game they've been playing for the past 6 or 7 months, they've won. And they've won big time."

Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a lengthy dissent accusing the court of hastening the "demise" of government institutions with their ruling.

Watch the clip below via CNN or click here.

'Enabling our demise': Justice Jackson rips high court over citizenship decision

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson accused the high court's conservative majority of hastening the "demise" of government institutions by handing President Donald Trump a huge victory in its decision on birthright citizenship.

In a 6-3 decision Friday, the court held that universal injunctions were improper and exceeded the power of the federal courts. In other words, lower courts must now "fight out" citizenship issues.

"Perhaps the degradation of our rule-of-law regime would happen anyway," Jackson wrote in a lengthy dissent. "But this Court's complicity in the creation of a culture of disdain for lower courts, their rulings, and the law (as they interpret it) will surely hasten the downfall of governing institutions, enabling our collective demise."

Jackson continued, "At the very least, I lament that the majority is so caught up in minutiae of the Government’s self-serving, finger-pointing arguments that it misses the plot."

The conservative majority dismissed Jackson's condemnation, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett writing, "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. We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary."

Read the dissent here.

Supreme Court liberal delivers blistering dissent after hit to its 'reputation'

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson berated her colleagues Friday for a ruling she claimed gave the impression that the Court was "overly sympathetic to corporate interests," The Daily Beast reported.

Jackson's takedown came after the conservative court voted 7-2 in favor of "allowing fuel producers to challenge California’s heightened emissions limits."

California set stricter standards for emissions than the federal government laid out in the Clean Air Act, the article stated. And, in 2020, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) moved toward phasing out the sale of gas-powered cars "in favor of zero-emission vehicles statewide by 2035."

The Supreme Court ruling now allows fossil fuel companies to challenge the California emissions law that Donald Trump called a “disaster for this country," according to the report.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined Jackson in the dissent.

“This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens,” Jackson wrote. “I worry that the fuel industry’s gain comes at a reputational cost for this Court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests.”

Jackson said she did not doubt the ruling would "aid future attempts by the fuel industry to attack the Clean Air Act.”

The Daily Beast's Paula Rodriguez wrote that the case "marks the latest of several to garner accusations that the conservative-majority court favors corporate interests." In 2024, the court overturned a 1984 decision known as the Chevron Defense, which also concerned the Clean Air Act. The court’s new ruling undid a policy that gave federal agencies precedence over courts in regulating their respective industries, earning praise from conservatives and condemnation from environmental activists."

Jackson's dissent continued, "Over time, such selectivity begets judicial overreach and erodes public trust in the impartiality of judicial decision making. Today’s ruling runs the risk of setting us down that path.”

Read The Daily Beast article here.

Hugely controversial Supreme Court ruling hands Trump and DOGE 'double win'

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of allowing DOGE to access sensitive Social Security information, according to CNN's Joan Biskupic.

In a 6-3 ruling Friday afternoon, the court lifted a block on DOGE's access that was imposed by a lower court.

"You know, the Social Security Administration has so much personal information on all of us; our Social Security numbers, our bank account numbers, all sorts of records, date of birth — and DOGE had said that it needed access to this material for part of its efforts to modernize government systems," Biskupic said.

With the three liberal justices dissenting, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote, "This will hand DOGE staffers highly sensitive data of millions of Americans," Biskupic read.

In a separate 6-3 ruling, the justices paused a lower court order giving access to DOGE information to outlets that requested it under the Freedom of Information Act.

"There had been a watchdog group [that] was suing DOGE trying to get information about its people and its activities, and was seeking documents and discovery, and the Supreme Court has paused that effort," Biskupic said.

She added that the rulings were "a double win" for both Trump and DOGE.

Watch the clip below via CNN.