Tag: Trump Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rejects Limits on Life Terms for Youths

Washington Post logo

The court, which has for years been cutting back on harsh punishments for juvenile offenders, changed course in a 6-to-3 decision.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that judges need not determine that juvenile offenders are beyond hope of rehabilitation before sentencing them to die in prison. The decision, concerning a teenager who killed his grandfather, appeared to signal the end of a trend that had limited the availability of severe punishments for youths who commit crimes before they turn 18.

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, writing for the majority in the 6-to-3 ruling, said it was enough that the sentencing judge exercised discretion rather than automatically imposing a sentence of life without parole.

“In a case involving an individual who was under 18 when he or she committed a homicide,” he wrote, “a state’s discretionary sentencing system is both constitutionally necessary and constitutionally sufficient.” Continue reading.

How the Supreme Court found its faith and put ‘religious liberty’ on a winning streak

The Conversation Logo

The Supreme Court’s current term is winding down, but there are still several cases to be decided – and, as with most terms, a controversy over church-state matters looms.

Fulton vs. City of Philadelphia is among the cases still to be decided. It centers on a requirement that private agencies that receive city funding – in this case an adoption agency – do not discriminate against any community they serve, including members of the LGBTQ community. This nondiscrimination requirement applies to both religious and nonreligious organizations. But the adoption service at the heart of the case – Catholic Social Services – refused to comply, asserting that not being allowed to discriminate against gay couples infringed upon its religious beliefs. 

It would appear on first glance that the city’s position is strong – after all, it provides the money and has a legitimate interest in ensuring that funding does not perpetuate discrimination based on sexual orientation. Continue reading.

Supreme Court relieves religious organizations from some covid-related restrictions

Washington Post logo

The Supreme Court’s new conservative majority late Wednesday night sided with religious organizations in New York that said they were illegally targeted by pandemic-related restrictions imposed by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo to combat spiking coronavirus cases.

The 5-to-4 order was the first show of solidified conservative strength on the court since the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, whom President Trump chose to replace liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg following her death in September. The decision differed from the court’s previous practice of deferring to local officials on pandemic-related restrictions, even in the area of constitutionally protected religious rights.

“Even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten,” said the unsigned opinion granting a stay of the state’s orders. “The restrictions at issue here, by effectively barring many from attending religious services, strike at the very heart of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty.” Continue reading.

Justice Sotomayor writes a devastating rebuke of her conservative colleagues’ callousness and fealty to Trump

AlterNet logoJustice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a devastating conclusion to a dissenting opinion released Friday, drawing attention to her conservative colleagues’ callousness toward inmates facing the death penalty and contrasting it with their excessive fealty to President Donald Trump.

Her dissent broke from the court’s decision to grant the Trump administration a stay in the case of Wolf v. Cook County. In the case, a lower court had issued a preliminary injunction blocking implementation in Illinois of Trump’s new “public charge” rule, which places restrictions on immigrants who it believes might use certain government services. Last week, the Trump administration had asked the Supreme Court to overturn the injunction and issue a stay to allow the rule to go into effect while the legal challenges continue.

The five conservative justices ruled in favor of the stay, while the liberal justices — including Sotomayor — opposed it. Continue reading.

Supreme Court removes last remaining obstacle to immigrant ‘wealth test’

Washington Post logoThe Supreme Court on Friday night removed the remaining obstacle to the Trump administration’s plan to implement new “wealth test” rules making it easier to deny immigrants residency or admission to the United States if they might depend on public-assistance programs.

Although legal challenges will continue on the merits of the policy in lower courts, the justices voted 5 to 4 to remove the last remaining judicial order blocking the new standards from going into effect while those battles play out.

Critics say the rules, which the administration plans to begin enforcing Monday, replace decades of understanding and would place a burden on poor immigrants from non-English-speaking countries. Continue reading.

Trump files to dismiss lawsuit from Bolton aide on impeachment testimony

The Hill logoPresident Trump on Thursday moved to dismiss a lawsuit filed by an aide to former national security adviser John Bolton who was seeking a ruling on whether he must comply with a congressional subpoena to testify in the House impeachment inquiry.

The filing to the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., cited Trump’s official capacity as president. In it, he sought to have a judge dismiss White House official Dr. Charles Kupperman’s lawsuit seeking guidance on whether he should comply with the subpoena or the president’s directive not to cooperate.

A representative for Trump argued that the president’s direction should supersede any prospective court ruling.

View the complete November 14 article by Brett Samuels on The Hill website here.

Divided Supreme Court leans toward allowing Trump to end DACA

The Hill logoThe Supreme Court on Tuesday was sharply divided over President Trump‘s move to end Obama-era protections for immigrants who arrived in the U.S. illegally as children, as the justices heard oral arguments in one of the most closely watched cases of the term.

Members of the court’s conservative wing appeared wary of allowing the court to review the administration’s decision to begin phasing out the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which grants deferral from deportation to nearly 700,000 young adult immigrants without legal status.

And questions from conservative justices during oral arguments suggested they appeared to think the administration had supplied legally sound reasons for eliminating DACA.

View the complete November 12 article by John Kruzel on The Hill website here.

Justice Sotomayor issues powerful dissent to the Supreme Court’s ‘extraordinary’ move unleashing Trump’s harsh asylum rules

AlterNet logoJustice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a forceful dissent issued Wednesday as the Supreme Court lifted an injunction on President Donald Trump’s aggressive new asylum rules.

In lifting the injunction, the court allowed the administration to broadly deny asylum to immigrants who passed through another country — such as Mexico — and weren’t denied asylum there. The Supreme Court didn’t rule on the merits, but it issued a stay overturning injunctions upheld by lower courts as legal challenges to the policy make their way through the system. Eventually, the case will likely come before the high court.

It would only take five justices to grant the stay, but the unsigned order did not say how the court voted. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Sotomayor’s dissent.

View the complete September 12 article by Cody Fenwick on the AlterNet website here.

Supreme Court rules Trump can use military funds for border wall construction

The Hill logoThe Supreme Court on Friday ruled that the Trump administration can start using military funds to construct a wall on the southern border, handing the president a major legal victory.
The ruling allows the administration to use $2.5 billion in military funds to begin construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border while litigation plays out. A lower court had issued an injunction blocking officials from using those funds.
The Supreme Court’s four liberal justices each at least partially dissented on the ruling Friday.

View the complete July 26 article by Jacqueline Thomsen on The Hill website here.