Latest in U.S. Supreme Court
The opinions reveal a Supreme Court grappling with the implications of the inseparable duality of the individual president and the institutional presidency.
The Supreme Court held that the limits set by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 do not violate the Suspension Clause in Article I of the Constitution. This decision denies undocumented immigrants the right to habeas corpus review of the government’s removal decisions.
On Sept. 11, the Supreme Court stayed a preliminary injunction imposed by Judge Jon Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the third country asylum rule recently issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The rule would bar foreign nationals who cross the U.S.-Mexico border from receipt of U.S. asylum when they transit through a third country without applying for protection in that country.
On Monday, the Trump administration applied to the Supreme Court for an emergency stay of a district court order in litigation related to the transgender servicemember ban. A district court ordered the government to produce a log of evidence it believes is subject to presidential communications privilege. The government argues that a 2004 case should protect the government from doing so. The full application is below.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to begin hearings Sept. 4 on the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court. If confirmed, Kavanaugh would replace the high court’s most frequent swing vote, retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy, a change that many expect would shift the court significantly to the right.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s judicial record on the Guantanamo military commissions is richer and less one-sided than some analysts, including Steve Vladeck in the Washington Post, have suggested.
On Tuesday, in a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld President Trump’s September 2017 immigration order restricting entry to the United States by nationals of eight countries, finding that the order did not exceed the president’s authority under Section 1182(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The full ruling is below.
On May 21, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Jam v.
The Senate intelligence committee has said that a small number of states had their election computer defenses breached by Russian hackers in 2016. Assume, as the report writes, that those hackers were linked to the Russian government. Could the states whose systems were breached sue Russia under the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction?
On April 17, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in Sessions v.