justices

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court justices, hearing arguments on school integration, signaled Monday that they are likely to bar the use of race when assigning students to public schools.

Such a ruling could deal a blow to hundreds of school systems across the nation that use racial guidelines to maintain a semblance of classroom integration in cities where neighborhoods are divided along racial lines.

However, it would be a major victory for those who have called for “colorblind” decision-making by public officials.

Monday’s argument also may well mark the emergence of a five-member majority determined to outlaw the official use of race in schools, colleges and public agencies.

“The purpose of the Equal Protection clause is to ensure that people are treated as individuals rather than based on the color of their skin,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts. Jr. said.

Three years ago, the court upheld affirmative action at colleges and universities. But that 5-4 decision depended on now-retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Since then, President Bush’s two appointees — Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. — have joined the court, and the tenor of Monday’s debate suggested a new majority would frown on race-based affirmative action if the issue were to return.

At issue Monday were the racial-integration guidelines adopted by school boards in Seattle and Louisville, Ky.

Seattle had allowed its students to choose which high school they wanted to attend, but tried to maintain a racial balance within 10 percentage points of the district’s overall enrollment. Before the program was suspended in 2001, 210 white students and 90 minorities were denied their first choice of a high school.

The Louisville schools seek to keep black enrollment between 15% and 50%.

Both policies were challenged by parents of a small number of students, most of them white, who were denied their first-choice school because of their race. Bush administration lawyers joined the cases on the side of the parents.

Officials could not say how many districts use racial guidelines that might be affected by the court’s ruling. But a ruling against such policies could jeopardize many magnet-school programs nationwide that use race as an admissions factor, including the one in Los Angeles Unified School District.

*

Outlook for LAUSD

About 54,000 LAUSD students are enrolled in magnet schools, and the district says “openings are determined by the need to maintain a racially balanced enrollment.” The district’s lawyers concede that a high court ruling striking down integration guidelines in Seattle and Louisville would put the Los Angeles program “at risk.”

The justices who spoke during Monday’s argument all agreed racial integration is a laudable goal. But a narrow majority of them — in comments, questions and past decisions — made clear their belief that the Constitution forbids shifting children from one school to another based on race.

Until Monday, civil rights lawyers held out the faint hope that Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a centrist, might vote to uphold local school integration plans, even though he had regularly opposed race-based affirmative action in the past.

But Kennedy quickly dashed those hopes.

He told a lawyer for the Seattle school board that “outright racial balancing … is patently unconstitutional. And that seems to be what you have here.” Agreeing with Kennedy, Roberts noted that the districts were making decisions on assigning students to schools “based on skin color and not any other factor.”

No students are excluded from school because of their race, responded Michael F. Madden, the school board’s lawyer. They may be assigned to a “different [but] basically a comparable school.”

“How is that different from the ‘separate-but-equal’ argument? … Everyone got a seat in Brown as well,” replied Roberts. “But because they were assigned to those seats on the basis of race, it violated equal protection.”

Roberts was referring to the landmark 1954 decision in Brown vs. Board of Education that rejected the “separate but equal” doctrine and struck down racial segregation.

*

‘Segregation is harmful’

Madden disputed the comparison between forced segregation and voluntary integration. “Segregation is harmful” to students, while diversity and integration “have benefits” for black and white children, he said.

But the conservative justices did not seem swayed by the argument that the ends justified the means.

Achieving racial diversity “is certainly an admirable goal,” said Justice Antonin Scalia. But he added, “Even if the objective is OK, you cannot achieve it by any means whatsoever…. I thought one of the absolute restrictions [in the Constitution] is that you cannot judge and classify people on the basis of their race.”

Alito also skeptically questioned the school lawyers, and Justice Clarence Thomas, though he said nothing Monday, has always insisted public officials may not treat individuals differently because of their race.

If there was one hopeful sign Monday for the proponents of the schools’ programs, it came when Kennedy said school officials were free to pursue racial integration as a goal. For example, a school system could locate a new school between a white and black neighborhood so as to achieve diversity, he said. School officials also could use special programs or magnet schools to draw a mix of black and white students, he said.

By contrast, “you’re characterizing each student by reason of the color of his or her skin,” Kennedy told one of the school board lawyers. “That is quite a different means. And it seems to be that should only be, if ever allowed, as a last resort.”

The court’s four liberal justices, sounding frustrated by their colleagues, defended the school integration policies. They wondered how the Supreme Court could reverse course from demanding desegregation in decades past to now, possibly, blocking it.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer noted that, in 1957, federal troops were sent to Little Rock, Ark., to desegregate the schools over the objections of local officials.

“The society was divided. Here we have a society, black and white, who elect school board members who together have voted to have this form of integration,” Breyer said. “Given that change in society, which is a good one, how can the Constitution be interpreted in a way that would require us, the judges, to go in and make them take the children out of the school?”

U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement was unmoved. “I think the answer is that the lesson of history in this area is that racial classifications are not one where we should just let local school board officials do what they think is right,” he said.

The court will issue a ruling in several months on Parents Involved in Community Schools vs. Seattle School District No. 1 and Meredith vs. Jefferson County Board of Education.

*

[email protected]

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday for the Trump administration and agreed U.S. immigration agents may stop and detain anyone they suspect is in the U.S. illegally based on little more than their working at a car wash, speaking Spanish or having brown skin.

In a 6-3 vote, the justices granted an emergency appeal and lifted a Los Angeles judge’s order that barred “roving patrols” from snatching people off Southern California streets based on how they look, what language they speak, what work they do or where they happen to be.

The decision is a significant victory for President Trump, clearing the way for his oft-promised “largest Mass Deportation Operation” in American history.

The court’s conservatives issued a brief, unsigned order that freezes the district judge’s restraining order indefinitely and frees immigration agents from it. As a practical matter, it gives immigration agents broad authority to stop people who they think may be here illegally.

Although Monday’s order is not a final ruling, it strongly signals the Supreme Court will not uphold strict limits on the authority of immigration agents to stop people for questioning.

The Supreme Court has been sharply criticized in recent weeks for handing down orders with no explanation. Perhaps for that reason, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote a 10-page opinion to explain the decision.

He said federal law says “immigration officers ‘may briefly detain’ an individual ‘for questioning’ if they have ‘a reasonable suspicion, based on specific articulable facts, that the person being questioned … is an alien illegally in the United States.’”

He said such stops are reasonable and legal based on the “totality of the circumstances. Here, those circumstances include: that there is an extremely high number and percentage of illegal immigrants in the Los Angeles area; that those individuals tend to gather in certain locations to seek daily work; that those individuals often work in certain kinds of jobs, such as day labor, landscaping, agriculture, and construction, that do not require paperwork and are therefore especially attractive to illegal immigrants; and that many of those illegally in the Los Angeles area come from Mexico or Central America and do not speak much English.”

Those were exactly the factors that the district judge and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said agents may not use as a basis for stopping someone for questioning.

The three liberal justices dissented.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the decision “yet another grave misuse of our emergency docket. We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job. Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent.”

“The Government … has all but declared that all Latinos, U.S. citizens or not, who work low wage jobs are fair game to be seized at any time, taken away from work, and held until they provide proof of their legal status to the agents’ satisfaction,” she wrote.

Sotomayor also disagreed with Kavanaugh’s assertions.

“Immigration agents are not conducting ‘brief stops for questioning,’ as the concurrence would like to believe. They are seizing people using firearms, physical violence, and warehouse detentions,” she wrote. “Nor are undocumented immigrants the only ones harmed by the Government’s conduct. United States citizens are also being seized, taken from their jobs, and prevented from working to support themselves and their families.”

In response, Kavanaugh said he agreed agents may not use “excessive force” in making stops or arrests. But the judge’s order dealt only with the legal grounds for making stops, he said.

Kavanaugh stressed the court has a limited role when it comes to immigration enforcement.

“The Judiciary does not set immigration policy or decide enforcement priorities. It should come as no surprise that some Administrations may be more laissez-faire in enforcing immigration law, and other Administrations more strict,” he wrote.

He noted the court had ruled for the Biden administration and against Texas, which had sought stricter enforcement against those who crossed the border or had a criminal record.

The case decided Monday began in early June when Trump appointees targeted Los Angeles with aggressive street sweeps that ensnared longtime residents, legal immigrants and even U.S. citizens.

A coalition of civil rights groups and local attorneys challenged the cases of three immigrants and two U.S. citizens caught up in the chaotic arrests, claiming they had been grabbed without reasonable suspicion — a violation of the 4th Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.

The lead plaintiffs — Pedro Vasquez Perdomo and two other Pasadena residents — were arrested at a bus stop when they were waiting to be picked up for a job.

On July 11, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong issued a temporary restraining order barring stops based solely on race or ethnicity, language, location or employment, either alone or in combination.

On July 28, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.

The case remains in its early phases, with hearings set for a preliminary injunction this month. But the Department of Justice argued even a brief limit on mass arrests constituted a “irreparable injury” to the government.

A few days later, Trump’s lawyers asked the Supreme Court to set aside Frimpong’s order. They said agents should be allowed to act on the assumption that Spanish-speaking Latinos who work as day laborers, at car washes or in landscaping and agriculture are likely to lack legal status.

“Reasonable suspicion is a low bar — well below probable cause,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote in his appeal. Agents can consider “the totality of the circumstances” when making stops, he said, including that “illegal presence is widespread in the Central District [of California], where 1 in every 10 people is an illegal alien.”

Both sides said the region’s diverse demographics support their view of the law. In an application to join the suit, Los Angeles and 20 other Southern California municipalities argued that “half the population of the Central District” now meet the government’s criteria for reasonable suspicion.

Roughly 10 million Latinos live in the seven counties covered by the order, and almost as many speak a language other than English at home.

Sauer also questioned whether the plaintiffs who sued had standing because they were unlikely to be arrested again. That argument was the subject of sharp and extended questioning in the 9th Circuit, where a three-judge panel ultimately rejected it.

“Agents have conducted many stops in the Los Angeles area within a matter of weeks, not years, some repeatedly in the same location,” the panel wrote in its July 28 opinion denying the stay.

One plaintiff was stopped twice in the span of 10 days, evidence of a “real and immediate threat” that he or any of the others could be stopped again, the 9th Circuit said.

Days after that decision, heavily armed Border Patrol agents sprang from the back of a Penske movers truck, snatching workers from the parking lot of a Westlake Home Depot in apparent defiance of the courts.

Immigrants rights advocates had urged the justices to not intervene.

“The raids have followed an unconstitutional pattern that officials have vowed to continue,” they said. Ruling for Trump would authorize “an extraordinarily expansive dragnet, placing millions of law-abiding people at imminent risk of detention by federal agents.”

The judge’s order had applied in an area that included Los Angeles and Orange counties as well as Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties.

“Every Latino should be concerned, every immigrant should be concerned, every person should be concerned,” Alfonso Barragan, a 62-year-old U.S. citizen, said Monday on his way into one of the L.A. Home Depots repeatedly hit by the controversial sweeps. “They’re allowing the [federal immigration agents] to break the law.”

Savage reported from Washington and Sharp from Los Angeles. Times staff writer Ruben Vives in Los Angeles contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court Monday again made it harder for Death Row inmates and other criminals to challenge their convictions in a federal court by claiming their constitutional rights were violated by state courts.

The pair of 6-3 rulings, including one in a California case, could speed the pace of executions around the nation. Many inmates have kept their legal cases–and themselves–alive by contesting their convictions in prolonged battles in federal courts.

In one decision, the justices reinstated a death sentence against a Sonoma County man who in 1975 shot and killed his wife. The second ruling involved a Virginia case.

Together, the rulings send a now-familiar message: Convicted criminals should not routinely get a second chance to contest their cases in a federal court.

About 95% of criminal cases nationwide are handled in the state courts. During the 1960s and ‘70s, however, the Supreme Court encouraged federal judges to closely review state cases to make sure that a defendant’s rights under the U.S. Constitution were protected. Inmates took advantage of this protection by filing a petition of habeas corpus to transfer their cases from a state to a federal court.

But under Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the high court has stressed the opposite. Federal judges should not casually meddle in state court matters, the conservative majority has said.

The California case concerned whether an inmate should get a second chance to contend that he was unfairly induced to incriminate himself.

The defendant in the case, Owen Duane Nunnemaker, was sentenced to death for the 1975 slaying of his estranged wife, Alice. Nunnemaker went to her home in Sebastopol, Calif., shot her at close range and cut a phone cord to prevent her children from calling for help. She died of her wounds.

He later claimed he loved her, but was temporarily deranged. Prosecutors, however, sent a police psychiatrist to interview Nunnemaker, who found him calm and rational. During the trial, the psychiatrist gave damaging testimony against the defendant, who was convicted and sentenced to death.

In his appeal in state courts, Nunnemaker said his Miranda rights were violated because the psychiatrist never warned him his statements could be used against him. The California appellate courts ruled that it was too late for Nunnemaker to raise this Miranda issue. His lawyer should have objected during the trial, the judges said.

Without giving a reason, the California Supreme Court declined to hear his appeal.

But he fared better in the federal courts. Last year, the U.S. 9th Circuit of Court Appeals ruled that Nunnemaker was entitled to a hearing before a federal judge to see whether his constitutional rights had been violated.

The Supreme Court said the 9th Circuit erred in the case, Ylst vs. Nunnemaker, 90-68. The majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, said the federal appeals court should have presumed that the California courts declined to hear Nunnemaker’s appeal for procedural reasons, and the federal courts have no power to second-guess those procedural rules.

In their dissent from the ruling, Justices Harry A. Blackmun, Thurgood Marshall and John Paul Stevens said, “The Court today continues its crusade to erect petty procedural barriers” to raising constitutional claims in the federal courts.

Monday’s other death penalty case ruling was written by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, herself a former state judge. She rejected the claim of a Virginia Death Row inmate that his initial appeal of his conviction still should be considered by that state’s court system, even though his lawyer was three days late in filing it.

The case “concerns the respect the federal courts owe the states,” O’Connor said. Because the state rules forbid the consideration of a late appeal, the federal courts must do the same, she said in Coleman vs. Thompson, 89-7662.

Law enforcement spokesmen praised the rulings for upholding valid criminal convictions. The decisions mean that an old legal challenge “cannot be resuscitated by some sympathetic federal judge,” said Charles Hobson of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in Sacramento. But Rep. Don Edwards (D-San Jose), whose House subcommittee is considering the federal habeas corpus laws, lambasted the court. The decisions “force innocent prisoners to pay the ultimate price for the errors of their lawyers in a state court,” Edwards said.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the nation’s anti-discrimination laws apply equally to all employees, regardless of whether those complaining of bias are white or Black, gay or straight.

In a short and unanimous opinion, the justices rejected as outdated and mistaken the view that “members of a majority group” must show more evidence of discrimination before they can sue and win.

Instead, the justices said the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has always prohibited workplace discrimination against “any individual” who suffers discrimination because of race, color, religion, national origin and sex, including sexual orientation.

The law “draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said.

The ruling revives a discrimination lawsuit brought by Marlean Ames, an Ohio woman who said she was demoted and discriminated against by a lesbian who became her supervisor. She was then replaced by a gay man who had less experience.

Ames is a heterosexual woman. She sued her employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services, and alleged she was discriminated against because of her sexual orientation.

But a federal judge rejected her discrimination claim, and the 6th Circuit Court in Cincinnati affirmed that decision. In doing so, the judges said she could not point to “background circumstances” or statistical evidence suggesting that hers was the “unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”

Law students at the University of Virginia Law School appealed her case to the Supreme Court. They pointed out that the 6th Circuit and several other courts continue to use an outdated, two-track approach to discrimination claims.

This is not the standard in much of the nation, however. For example, they said the 9th Circuit Court based in California does not follow this approach, which would require more proof of discrimination from whites or men or heterosexuals.

But the law students said the court should hear the Ames case and clarify the law nationwide.

Although the case did not directly involve DEI, or diversity, equity and inclusion, it gained added attention because of President Trump’s drive to rid the government of DEI policies.

Jackson said the Supreme Court for more than 50 years has steadily rejected the view that discrimination laws apply differently to different groups of people.

In Griggs vs. Duke Power in 1971, “we said that ‘[d]iscriminatory preference for any group, minority or majority, is precisely and only what Congress has proscribed.’”

A few years later, the court rejected the two-track approach, she said, “holding that Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act] prohibited racial discrimination against the white petitioners in th[at] case upon the same standards as would be applicable were they Negroes.”

Lawyers for the Biden and Trump administrations had urged the court to overrule the 6th Circuit and make clear there is no double standard for deciding discrimination claims

In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas noted the “majority” in the workplace differs by workplace.

“Women make up the majority of employees in certain industries, such as teaching and nursing, but the minority in other industries, such as construction.”

“Defining the ‘majority’ is even more difficult in the context of race,” he wrote. “American families have become increasingly multicultural, and attempts to divide us all up into a handful of groups have become only more incoherent with time.”

The court’s ruling in Ames vs. Ohio Department of Youth Services said the Ohio court should reopen and reconsider Ames’ claim of discrimination.

Experts in discrimination law said the decision will have an effect in some regions but not others.

“As a practical matter, more ‘reverse discrimination’ lawsuits may survive a motion to dismiss,” said Evan Parness, an attorney at the Covington law firm in New York.

Although the decision doesn’t significantly change how federal district courts in California operate, it has implications for some courts in other parts of the country that require the higher burden of proof, said Elizabeth Beske, professor of law at American University in Washington.

The “background circumstances” rule was first applied in D.C. courts, after a white man sued the Baltimore and Ohio railroad company arguing he was discriminated against when jobs were instead given to Black and female applicants. The court held that “it defie[d] common sense to suggest that the promotion of a Black employee justifies an inference of prejudice against white co-workers in our present society.”

Columbia Law professor Olatunde C. Johnson said the “opinion is not surprising. It depends on a straightforward and sensible statutory reading of Title VII. The 6th Circuit’s ‘background circumstances’ approach was not typical, so I don’t expect the case to dramatically change employment discrimination litigation on the ground.”

Brian McGinnis, an attorney with the firm Fox Rothschild, said because the decision was unanimous, which is rare, it shows an uncontroversial and “pretty straightforward” perspective that there is no historical basis in case law for requiring extra proof from white, heterosexual or other majority groups.

And it represents an effort by the court to streamline and eliminate the need for additional steps in litigation, he said.

There is some question as to how the change is applied, but McGinnis doesn’t expect any issues.

“There is some potential for mischief, but I don’t think it will have much change on the day-to-day operations of many employers or courts,” McGinnis said. “The short answer is, it should not change much.”

Savage reported from Washington and Hussain from Los Angeles.

The California Public Utilities Commission failed to abide by state law when it slashed financial incentives for residential rooftop solar panels in 2022, environmental groups argued before the California Supreme Court Wednesday.

The commission’s policy, which took effect in April 2023, cut the value of the credits that panel owners receive for sending power they don’t need to the electric grid by as much as 80%.

In arguments before the court, the environmental groups said the decision has stymied efforts to get homeowners and businesses to install the climate-friendly panels.

The commission violated state law, the groups argued, by not considering all the benefits of the solar panels in its decision and by not ensuring that rooftop solar systems could continue to expand in disadvantaged communities.

More than two million solar systems sit on the roofs of homes, businesses and schools in California — more than any other state. Environmentalists say that number must increase if the state is to meet its goal set by a 2018 law of using only carbon-free energy by 2045.

On the other side of the courtroom battle were lawyers from Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office, arguing that the commission’s five members, all pointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, had followed the law in making their decision.

In briefs filed before Wednesday’s oral arguments, the government lawyers sided with those from the state’s three big for-profit electric utilities — Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric.

Mica Moore, deputy solicitor general, said at the hearing in downtown Los Angles that the credits given to the rooftop panel owners on their electric bill have become so valuable that they were resulting in “a cost shift” of billions of dollars to those who do not own the panels. This was raising electric bills, she said, especially hurting low-income electric customers.

The credits for the energy sent by the rooftop systems to the grid are valued at the retail rate for electricity, which has risen fast as the commissioners have voted in recent years to approve rate increases the utilities have requested.

The environmental groups and other critics of the commission’s decision have argued that there is no “cost shift.” They say that the commission failed to consider in its calculations the many benefits of the rooftop solar panels, including how they lower the amount of transmission lines and other infrastructure the utilities need to build.

“The cost shift narrative is a red herring,” argued plaintiff’s attorney Malinda Dickenson, representing the Center for Biological Diversity, the Environmental Working Group and the Protect Our Communities Foundation.

Moore countered by saying the commission doesn’t have to consider all the possible societal or private benefits of the rooftop panels.

For example, even though the rooftop panels could result in conserving land that was otherwise needed for industrial scale solar farms, the government lawyers argued in their brief, the commission was not obligated to consider that value in its calculation of the amount of costs the rooftop panels shift to other customers.

The government lawyers also said the commission had created other programs beyond the electric bill credits to help disadvantaged communities afford the solar systems.

The utilities have long complained that electric bills have been rising because owners of the rooftop solar panels are not paying their fair share of the fixed costs required to maintain the electric grid.

During the oral arguments, the seven justices focused on a legal question of whether a state appeals court erred when it ruled in January 2024 against the environmental groups and said that the court must defer to how the commission interpreted the law because it had more expertise in utility matters.

“This deferential standard of review leaves no basis for faulting the Commission’s work,” the appeals court concluded in its opinion.

The environmental groups argue the appeals court ignored a 1998 law that said the commission’s decisions should be held to the same standard of court review as those by other state agencies.

Moore told the seven justices that the appeals court had made the correct decision to defer to the commission.

Not all justices seemed to agree with that.

“But we’re pretty good about figuring out what the law says,” Associate Justice Carol Corrigan said to Moore during the proceeding. “Why should we defer on that to the commission?”

The justices will weigh the arguments made by both sides and issue a decision in the next 90 days.

The big utilities have for decades tried to reduce the energy credits aimed at incentivizing Californians to invest in the solar panel systems that can cost tens of thousands of dollars. The rooftop systems have cut into the utilities’ sale of electricity.

On another front, the state’s three big utilities are now lobbying in Sacramento to reduce credits for Californians who installed their panels before April 15, 2023. The commission’s decision in 2022 left the incentives in place for those panel owners for 20 years after their purchase.

Early this year, Assemblywoman Lisa Calderon (D-Whittier), a former Southern California Edison executive, introduced a bill that would have ended the program for all solar owners who installed their systems by April 2023 after 10 years. In face of opposition and protests by solar owners, Calderon amended the bill so it would end the program — where credits are valued at the retail electric rate — only for those selling their homes.

Calderon said the bill would save the state’s electric customers $2.5 billion over the next 18 years.

On Monday, Roderick Brewer, an Edison lobbyist, sent an email to Assemblymembers, urging them to vote for the bill known as AB 942. “Save Electricity Customers Billions, Promote Equity,” he urged in the email.

The Assembly voted 46 to 14 to approve the bill on Tuesday night, sending it to the state Senate for consideration.

The timing of the vote surprised opponents of the bill. They expected a vote late this week because of rules that allow more time for bills to be reviewed after they are amended. Calderon amended the bill late Monday.

Nick Miller, a spokesman for Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, said Calderon had asked for a waiver of the rules so that it could be voted on Tuesday night.

Such waivers, Miller said, are “not uncommon.”

WASHINGTON — Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) apologized on Thursday for his impassioned comments about two Supreme Court justices, saying he “should not have used the words.”

Schumer derided Trump-appointed Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh on Wednesday as the Supreme Court heard arguments on a Louisiana law restricting abortion rights, saying they “will pay the price” if they side with the court’s conservatives on this case. “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions,” he added.

Speaking on the Senate floor, Schumer said his words “didn’t come out the way I intended to.”

“My point was that there would be political consequences for President Trump and Senate Republicans if the Supreme Court, with the newly confirmed justices, stripped away a woman’s right to choose,” he said. He added: “I’m from Brooklyn. We speak in strong language.”

A clip of Schumer’s speech circulated on social media and was condemned by conservatives, including President Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who on Thursday said the words “at the very best…were astonishingly reckless and irresponsible” and “clearly…dangerous.”

“It has almost been a century since the last time Democrats threatened to pack the Supreme Court because they wanted different rulings. History still judges that disgraceful episode to this day,” McConnell said. “So I would suggest that my Democratic colleagues spend less time trying to threaten impartial judges, and more time coming up with ideas that are actually constitutional.”

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. issued a rare rebuke, saying Schumer’s comments were “not only inappropriate” but “dangerous.”

“All members of the court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter,” Roberts said.

During court arguments on Wednesday, justices focused their questions on how specifically the Louisiana law would affect women and clinics that perform the procedure.

“I feel so deeply the anger of women all across America about Senate Republicans and the courts working hand in glove to take down Roe v. Wade,” Schumer told his Senate colleagues. “Republican state legislatures are restricting a woman’s right to choose so severely as to make it nonexistent, and the courts are now likely to go along because Senate Republicans have confirmed nominees they believe will strip away women’s rights and fundamentally change this country.

“I didn’t intend to suggest anything other than political and public opinion consequences for the Supreme Court,” he said, “and it is a gross distortion to imply otherwise.”

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said Monday that police do not have a broad authority to enter a home to check on someone who may be suicidal and then search and seize evidence that may be used against the person.

In a 9-0 decision, the justices rejected what some courts called a “community caretaking” rule that might authorize police to enter a home even if they had no evidence of a crime or an emergency.

The case before the court began when the wife of a Rhode Island man called police because she was worried about her husband. They had argued the night before, and he possessed a handgun. Officers found the man, Edward Caniglia, sitting on his front porch. He denied that he was suicidal, but the officers called an ambulance and insisted he go to a hospital for an evaluation. He agreed but told them they could not enter his home and take his guns.

After he left, they did just that and confiscated two handguns.

The homeowner sued, alleging a violation of the 4th Amendment, which forbids “unreasonable searches and seizures” and usually requires officers to have a search warrant before going into a residence without the owner’s permission. But the 1st Circuit Court in Boston rejected his claim and said the police were acting to protect the safety and welfare of the homeowner.

The Supreme Court took up his appeal and overturned the lower court’s ruling in a short opinion in Caniglia vs. Strom.

“The 1st Circuit’s community caretaking rule goes beyond anything this court has recognized” under the 4th Amendment, said Justice Clarence Thomas. The police “lacked a warrant or consent” to enter the home, and they were not “reacting to a crime.” Nor was there an emergency that required officers to enter immediately, he added.

In the past, the court had upheld an officer’s search of a car in a similar situation. But “what is reasonable for vehicles is different from what is reasonable for homes,” Thomas wrote.

Several justices wrote separately to say the decision on Monday was narrow. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said “police officers may enter a home without a warrant in circumstances where they are reasonably trying to prevent a potential suicide or to help an elderly person who has been out of contact and may have fallen and suffered a serious injury.”

Washington lawyer Shay Dvoretsky, who represented the homeowner, called Monday’s decision “a significant victory for Americans concerned about the sanctity of their homes. The Supreme Court reaffirmed bedrock 4th Amendment principles and held that police do not have an open-ended license to perform community caretaking tasks in the home.”

Meanwhile, the court limited the reach of last year’s ruling that rejected non-unanimous jury verdicts in serious criminal cases. The justices said then that the Constitution as originally understood meant a jury must be unanimous to find someone guilty.

Only two states — Louisiana and Oregon — had permitted guilty verdicts based on a 10-2 or 11-1 vote, and both had agreed to end the practice.

In Edwards vs. Vannoy, the court said it would not apply the new rule retroactively to old cases. Thedrick Edwards was convicted on multiple counts of robbery, kidnapping and rape in 2006 and sentenced to life in prison, but the jury verdicts were not unanimous.

The justices split along ideological lines on whether he could obtain a new trial. The court’s conservatives insisted the justices had said in the past they would not apply new decisions to old cases. But the court’s liberals said an exception existed for “watershed” rulings and that last year’s ruling met that standard.

In 1989, the court left open the possibility that it might extend new rules to past cases if they involved an issue of “fundamental” fairness. Since then, however, the justices have never agreed that a new rule is so “fundamental” as to be such a “watershed” decision.