Category

Category: Politics

Politics

The morning read for Friday, May 2

<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/aHOJYtnOgTGWcLlTD1wkJXn9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="The morning read for Friday, May 2" title="The morning read for Friday, May 2"> <p>Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles and commentary related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Friday morning read:</p> <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li><a href="https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/01/politics/trump-asks-supreme-court-to-end-deportation-protections-for-venezuelans-in-the-us">Trump asks Supreme Court to end deportation protections for Venezuelans in the US</a> (John Fritze, CNN)</li> <li><a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/01/ketanji-brown-jackson-sharply-condemns-trumps-attacks-on-judges-00323010">Ketanji Brown Jackson sharply condemns Trump’s attacks on judges</a> (Josh Gerstein, Politico)</li> <li><a href="https://www.thebulwark.com/p/conservative-case-against-trump-power-grab-firing-commission-members">The Conservative Case Against Trump’s Latest Power Grab</a> (Amit Agarwal, The Bulwark)</li> <li><a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/194751/supreme-court-declaring-war-secularism">The Supreme Court Is Declaring War on Secularism</a> (Matt Ford, The New Republic)</li> <li><a href="https://thereload.com/doj-urges-supreme-court-to-hear-hawaii-gun-free-zone-case/">DOJ Urges Supreme Court to Hear Hawaii ‘Gun-Free Zone’ Case</a> (Stephen Gutowski, The Reload) </li> </ul> <p></p> <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/05/the-morning-read-for-friday-may-2/">The morning read for Friday, May 2</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>

mingooland · · 1 min read
Read more →
Politics

Trump asks Supreme Court to allow an end to protected status for Venezuelans 

<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/MYv-0RnHgHoabU-Nov2oH3n9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="Trump asks Supreme Court to allow an end to protected status for Venezuelans " title="Trump asks Supreme Court to allow an end to protected status for Venezuelans "> <p>The Trump administration came to the Supreme Court once again on Thursday afternoon, asking the justices to clear the way for it to end the protected status of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan citizens living in the United States. The ruling by Senior U.S. District Judge Edward Chen keeping the protection in place, Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote, “wrested control of the nation’s immigration policy away from the Executive Branch and imposed the court’s own perception as to whether the government’s actions might ‘contradict U.S. foreign policies,’ ‘have adverse national security ramifications,’ or ‘weaken the standing of the United States in the international community.’” </p> <p>In the Temporary Protected Status program, Congress gave the Secretary of Homeland Security the power to allow some foreign citizens to stay in the United States and work if they cannot return safely to their home country because of a natural disaster, armed conflict, or other “extraordinary and temporary conditions in the foreign state.” The secretary is instructed to terminate the TPS designation when a country no longer meets those criteria. </p> <span id="more-505592"></span> <p>In 2021, Alejandro Mayorkas – then the Secretary of Homeland Security – designated Venezuela under the TPS program and later extended the program. </p> <p>At issue in the case is the Feb. 1, 2025, termination of the TPS designation (as well as efforts to extend it) by Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem for a particular group of Venezuelan nationals.</p> <p>Less than three weeks later, the plaintiffs in this case – Venezuelan nationals who are beneficiaries of the TPS program, as well as an organization representing TPS beneficiaries – went to federal court in San Francisco, seeking to postpone Noem’s termination. </p> <p>On March 31, Chen granted that request and issued an order that barred Noem from ending the designation. He called Noem’s conduct in seeking to lift an existing TPS designation “unprecedented,” and suggested that her decision had been “predicated on negative stereotypes” about Venezuelan migrants.</p> <p>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit rejected the government’s request to stay Chen’s order while its appeal continued. That prompted Sauer to come to the Supreme Court on Thursday, seeking to put Chen’s order on hold while the government appeals to the 9th Circuit and, if necessary, the Supreme Court.</p> <p>The TPS program “implicates particularly discretionary, sensitive, and foreign-policy-laden judgments of the Executive Branch regarding immigration policy,” Sauer emphasized. And in particular, he wrote, Congress specifically provided that courts should not be able to review the secretary’s determinations. But although the TPS statute is “unambiguous” on that point, Sauer stressed, Chen concluded that he could review Noem’s decisions because the plaintiffs had brought their challenges under the federal law governing administrative agencies. Chen “issued sweeping preliminary relief that overrides” Noem’s determinations and puts her decisions on hold “indefinitely,” requiring her to allow “hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan nations to remain in the country, notwithstanding her reasoned determination that doing so is ‘contrary to the national interest,’” Sauer complained. </p> <p>The Supreme Court directed TPS beneficiaries to file a response to the government’s request by 5 p.m. on Thursday, May 8. </p> <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/05/trump-asks-supreme-court-to-allow-an-end-to-protected-status-for-venezuelans/">Trump asks Supreme Court to allow an end to protected status for Venezuelans </a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>

mingooland · · 3 min read
Read more →
Politics

Transgender service members urge justices to let them continue to serve

<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/Hss63mFCsiG0iaUxoukcNHn9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="Transgender service members urge justices to let them continue to serve" title="Transgender service members urge justices to let them continue to serve"> <p>A group of transgender service members urged the Supreme Court on Thursday to leave in place an order by a federal judge that bars the government from enforcing a policy that would prohibit them from serving in the U.S. military. Putting the order on hold, they told the justices, would “upend the <em>status quo</em> by allowing the government to immediately begin discharging <em>thousands</em> of transgender servicemembers, including” the plaintiffs in this case, “thereby ending distinguished careers and gouging holes in military units” </p> <p>The Trump administration came to the court last week, asking the justices to put the order on hold while the service members’ challenge to the policy continues in the lower courts. The order, it said, had usurped the executive branch’s “authority to determine who may serve in the Nation’s armed forces.” </p> <span id="more-505582"></span> <p>The proceedings now before the court began as a challenge to a policy issued in February by the Department of Defense that, subject to narrow exceptions, disqualifies anyone who has gender dysphoria – that is, psychological distress caused by a conflict between the sex that someone is assigned at birth and that person’s gender identity – or has undergone medical interventions to treat gender dysphoria. </p> <p>Seven of the eight individual plaintiffs are currently members of the armed forces and have collectively served more than 100 years and received more than 70 medals. The eighth individual plaintiff would like to join the military. </p> <p>The lead plaintiff is Commander Emily Shilling, a naval aviator who has flown more than 60 combat missions and served as a naval test pilot. During her nearly two decades of service, she says, the Navy has spent more than $20 million on her training. </p> <p>The plaintiffs contend that the policy violates, among other things, the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection. </p> <p>Senior U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle, a George W. Bush appointee, agreed with the plaintiffs and barred the government from enforcing its policy anywhere in the United States. He called the policy a “de facto blanket prohibition on transgender service.” </p> <p>When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit declined to pause Settle’s order while the government appealed, the Trump administration went instead to the Supreme Court on April 24. Solicitor General D. John Sauer stressed that an expert panel during Trump’s first administration had concluded that allowing people with gender dysphoria to serve in the armed forces would be “contrary to ‘military effectiveness and lethality.’” Indeed, he noted, the justices during that administration had allowed the government to enforce a policy “materially indistinguishable from the one at issue here.” </p> <p>The plaintiffs reject the premise of the policy. Instead, they maintain, “equal service by openly transgender servicemembers has <em>improved</em> our military’s readiness, lethality, and unit cohesion, while discharging transgender servicemembers from our Armed Forces would <em>harm</em> all three, as well as the public fisc.”</p> <p>It is immaterial, the plaintiffs say, that the Supreme Court allowed the military to implement a “much narrower and different policy” in 2019. That policy allowed active-duty service members who had already transitioned to remain in the armed forces and retain their healthcare. The earlier policy, they contend, also “lacked the animus-laden language” of the 2025 policy and the executive order that led to it, “which disparage transgender people as inherently untruthful, undisciplined, dishonorable, selfish, arrogant, and incapable of meeting the rigorous standards of military service.” Moreover, the policy before the court in 2019 was “based on <em>predictions</em> about open service by transgender people.” But since then, they emphasize, transgender people have served openly in the military, without any negative effect on military readiness or lethality. </p> <p>The plaintiffs push back against the government’s insistence that the ban only applies to people with gender dysphoria, not to transgender people, dismissing that argument as “folly.” The ban requires members of the armed forces to “only serve in accordance with their [birth] sex,” they note, and prohibits them from serving if they have ever tried “to transition to any sex other than their [birth] sex.” Indeed, they add, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and the department itself have repeatedly referred to the ban as applying to transgender service members. </p> <p>The Trump administration will now have an opportunity to reply to the plaintiffs’ brief. After that, a ruling on the government’s request could come at any time. </p> <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/05/transgender-service-members-urge-justices-to-let-them-continue-to-serve/">Transgender service members urge justices to let them continue to serve</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>

mingooland · · 4 min read
Read more →
Politics

Court rules for Coast Guard reservist in "national emergency” pay dispute

<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/SMUiTwXeIm8RFlX8Wo9Dlnn9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="Court rules for Coast Guard reservist in "national emergency” pay dispute" title="Court rules for Coast Guard reservist in "national emergency” pay dispute"> <p>The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that an air traffic controller who was called up to serve on active duty in the U.S. Coast Guard “during a national emergency” is entitled to have the government pay him the difference between his civilian salary and his military pay, without having to show that his service was connected to a specific emergency. </p> <p>By a vote of 5-4, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-861_7lh8.pdf">the court rejected</a> the government’s narrower interpretation of the law at issue in the case, which would make it harder for reservists like Coast Guard reservist Nick Feliciano to recover differential pay. The justices splintered in an unusual line-up, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor joining four of her more conservative colleagues – Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett – in the majority. </p> <span id="more-505579"></span> <p>Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, in a 17-page opinion joined by Justices Samuel Alito, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.</p> <p>At issue in this case is the interpretation of a federal law known as the “differential pay” statute, which is intended to compensate reservists who are federal employees for the difference between their salaries while on active duty and their federal civilian salaries. </p> <p>The law provides that federal civilian employees are entitled to differential pay while on active duty “pursuant to a call or order to active duty under” a provision that includes, among others, “any other provision of law during a war or during a national emergency declared by the President or Congress.” </p> <p>Feliciano was called up to serve in the Coast Guard as part of the operations in Iraq and the war following the Sept. 11 attacks. He served from July 2012 until February 2017. While he was on active duty, he served on a Coast Guard ship that escorted other ships to and from a harbor. Feliciano’s pay rate was lower during his five years on active duty than what he earned as a federal employee for the Federal Aviation Administration.</p> <p>Feliciano went to the Merits Systems Protection Board and then to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, seeking differential pay – which he had not received for most of the time that he was on active duty. The Federal Circuit ruled that reservists seeking differential pay under the law at issue here must demonstrate that they were “directly called to serve in a contingency operation.” </p> <p>Feliciano then went to the Supreme Court, which agreed to decide whether federal civilian employees are entitled to differential pay even if their duties are not directly connected to the national emergency. </p> <p>The dispute hinges on the meaning of the word “during” in the phrase “during a national emergency.” Writing for the majority, Gorsuch explained that the word “during” usually “means ‘contemporaneous with,’” and “does not generally imply a substantive connection.” </p> <p>Gorsuch acknowledged that Congress sometimes uses a word in a way that is intended to be different from its regular meaning. But there is no reason to believe, he continued, that Congress did so hear. </p> <p>“Given all that,” Gorsuch concluded, “we think Mr. Feliciano’s reading more consistent with the statutory language before us. Just ask yourself how an ordinary American might approach the law’s terms. Would he have any reason to think that a reservist called up to active duty ‘during’ a national emergency is entitled to differential pay if, and only if, he can prove his service has a ‘substantive connection’ to a particular emergency? We doubt it.” </p> <p>Gorsuch added that a “number of contextual clues” further supported the majority’s decision. First, he noted, Congress did make clear in other laws that both a temporal and a substantive connection are required. Its failure to do so here “supplies a telling clue,” Gorsuch posited. </p> <p>Requiring a substantive connection to obtain differential pay would raise additional questions, Gorsuch continued, such as exactly what reservists must show: Are they required to show that they served in support of a contingency operation while on active duty, as the government contends, or directly in a contingency operation, as the Federal Circuit contends? “How might we choose between these two rules? The statute,” Gorsuch observed, “does not say.” </p> <p>The majority rejected the contention that its rule could create problems – for example, by requiring the government to provide differential pay even when Congress might not have intended it, such as a reservist who is called up to active duty to face a court martial. Gorsuch indicated that such scenarios are for Congress, rather than the courts, to address. </p> <p>In his dissent, Thomas countered that reservists are called to serve “during a national emergency” only when they are called up “in the course of an operation responding to a national emergency.” </p> <p>Thomas resisted Gorsuch’s contention that the word “during” normally means “contemporaneous with.” Although it sometimes serves that purpose, Thomas acknowledged, at other times it can be used “to reference only events that are substantively connected to the ongoing event—that is, events that occur ‘in the course of’ or ‘in the process of’ the ongoing event.” </p> <p>Because the meaning of “during” is not, standing alone, clear, Thomas continued, courts should instead look at the broader context of the phrase “during a national emergency.” And those “contextual clues,” Thomas wrote, indicate that the phrase only applies to reservists who are called to serve in operations responding to a national emergency.</p> <p>This does not, Thomas stressed, necessarily mean that Feliciano will not receive differential pay. “As even the Government admits,” Thomas wrote, “Feliciano’s ‘orders indicate that [he] would have been entitled to differential pay’ under a proper reading of the” law.” Thomas therefore would send the case back to the Federal Circuit for it to take another look. </p> <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/05/court-rules-for-coast-guard-reservist-in-national-emergency-pay-dispute/">Court rules for Coast Guard reservist in “national emergency” pay dispute</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>

mingooland · · 5 min read
Read more →