low court

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to uphold President Trump’s birthright citizenship order declaring that children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens.

The appeal, shared with the Associated Press on Saturday, sets in motion a process at the high court that could lead to a definitive ruling from the justices on whether the citizenship restrictions are constitutional.

Lower-court judges have blocked them from taking effect anywhere. The Republican administration is not asking the court to let the restrictions take effect before it rules.

The Justice Department’s petition has been shared with lawyers for parties challenging the order, but is not yet docketed at the Supreme Court.

Any decision on whether to take up the case probably is months away and arguments probably would not take place until the late winter or early spring.

“The lower court’s decisions invalidated a policy of prime importance to the president and his administration in a manner that undermines our border security,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote. “Those decisions confer, without lawful justification, the privilege of American citizenship on hundreds of thousands of unqualified people.”

Cody Wofsy, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who represents children who would be affected by Trump’s restrictions, said the administration’s plan is plainly unconstitutional.

“This executive order is illegal, full stop, and no amount of maneuvering from the administration is going to change that. We will continue to ensure that no baby’s citizenship is ever stripped away by this cruel and senseless order,” Wofsy said in an email.

Trump signed an executive order on the first day of his second term in the White House that would upend more than 125 years of understanding that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment confers citizenship on everyone born on American soil, with narrow exceptions for the children of foreign diplomats and those born to a foreign occupying force.

In a series of decisions, lower courts have struck down the executive order as unconstitutional, or likely so, even after a Supreme Court ruling in late June that limited judges’ use of nationwide injunctions.

While the Supreme Court curbed the use of nationwide injunctions, it did not rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states. The justices did not decide at that time whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional.

But every lower court that has looked at the issue has concluded that Trump’s order violates or probably violates the 14th Amendment, which was intended to ensure that Black people, including formerly enslaved people, had citizenship.

The administration is appealing two cases.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco ruled in July that a group of states that sued over the order needed a nationwide injunction to prevent the problems that would be caused by birthright citizenship being in effect in some states and not others.

Also in July, a federal judge in New Hampshire blocked the citizenship order in a class-action lawsuit including all children who would be affected.

Birthright citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers who are in the country illegally, under long-standing rules. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the first sentence of the 14th Amendment.

The administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.

Sherman and Whitehurst write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court granted an unusually quick hearing on President Trump’s sweeping tariffs on Tuesday, putting a policy at the center of his economic agenda squarely before the nation’s highest court.

The tariffs will remain in place in the lead-up to arguments set for November, a lightning-fast timetable by the Supreme Court’s typical standards.

The court agreed to take up an appeal from the Trump administration after lower courts found most of his tariffs illegal.

The small businesses and states that challenged them also agreed to the accelerated timetable. They say Trump’s import taxes on goods from nearly every country in the world have nearly driven their businesses to bankruptcy.

Two lower courts have agreed that Trump didn’t have the power to impose tariffs on nearly every country on earth under an emergency powers law, though a 7-4 appeals court has left them in place for now.

The Trump administration asked the justices to intervene quickly, arguing the law gives him the power to regulate imports and striking down the tariffs would put the country on “the brink of economic catastrophe.”

The case will come before a court that has been reluctant to check Trump’s extraordinary flex of executive power. One big question is whether the justices’ own expansive view of presidential authority allows for Trump’s tariffs without the explicit approval of Congress, which the Constitution endows with the power to levy tariffs. Three of the justices on the conservative-majority court were nominated by Trump in his first term.

While the tariffs and their erratic rollout have raised fears of higher prices and slower economic growth, Trump has also used them to pressure other countries into accepting new trade deals. Revenue from tariffs totaled $159 billion by late August, more than double what it was at the same point a year earlier.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer has argued that the lower court rulings are already affecting those trade negotiations. If the tariffs are struck down, the U.S. Treasury might take a hit by having to refund some of the import taxes it’s collected, Trump administration officials have said. A ruling against them could even the nation’s ability to reduce the flow of fentanyl and efforts to end Russia’s war against Ukraine, Sauer argued.

The administration did win over four appeals court judges who found the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act lets the president regulate importation during emergencies without explicit limitations. In recent decades, Congress has ceded some tariff authority to the president and Trump has made the most of the power vacuum.

The case involves two sets of import taxes, both of which Trump justified by declaring a national emergency: the tariffs first announced in April and the ones from February on imports from Canada, China and Mexico.

It doesn’t include his levies on foreign steel, aluminum and autos, or the tariffs Trump imposed on China in his first term that were kept by Democratic President Biden.

Trump can impose tariffs under other laws, but those have more limitations on the speed and severity with which he could act.

Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Chief Justice John Roberts on Monday let President Trump remove a member of the Federal Trade Commission, the latest in a string of high-profile firings allowed for now by Supreme Court.

Trump first moved to fire Rebecca Slaughter in the spring, but she sued and lower courts ordered her reinstated because the law allows commissioners to be removed only for problems like misconduct or neglect of duty.

Roberts halted those decisions in a brief order, responding to an appeal from the Trump administration on the court’s emergency docket.

The Justice Department has argued that the FTC and other executive branch agencies are under Trump’s control and the Republican president is free to remove commissioners without cause.

Slaughter’s lawsuit over her firing will keep playing out, as Roberts asked her lawyers to respond to the Trump administration’s arguments by next week.

The court has previously allowed the firings of several other board members of independent agencies. It has suggested, however, that his power to fire has limitations at the Federal Reserve, a prospect that could soon be tested with the case of Fed Gov. Lisa Cook.

Monday’s order is the latest sign that the Supreme Court’s conservative majority has effectively abandoned a 90-year-old high court precedent that protected some federal agencies from arbitrary presidential action.

In the 1935 decision known as Humphrey’s Executor, the court unanimously held that presidents cannot fire independent board members without cause.

The decision ushered in an era of powerful independent federal agencies charged with regulating labor relations, employment discrimination, the airwaves and much else. But it has long rankled conservative legal theorists who argue the modern administrative state gets the Constitution all wrong because such agencies should answer to the president.

The agency at the center of the case was also the FTC, a point cited by lower-court judges in the lawsuit filed by Slaughter. She has ping-ponged in and out of the job as the case worked its way through the courts.

The FTC is a regulator created by Congress that enforces consumer protection measures and antitrust legislation. Its seats are typically comprised of three members of the president’s party and two from the opposing party.

Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Mark Sherman contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — President Trump has asked the Supreme Court for a fast-tracking ruling that he has broad power acting on his own to impose tariffs on products coming from countries around the world.

Despite losing in the lower courts, Trump and his lawyers have reason to believe they can win in the Supreme Court. The six conservative justices believe in strong presidential power, particularly in the area of foreign policy and national security.

In a three-page appeal filed Wednesday evening, they proposed the court decide by Wednesday to grant review and to hear arguments in early November.

They said the lower court setbacks, unless quickly reversed, “gravely undermine the President’s ability to conduct real-world diplomacy and his ability to protect the national security and economy of the United States.”

They cited Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s warning about the potential for economic disruption if the court does not act soon.

“Delaying a ruling until June 26 could result in a scenario in which $750 billion-$1 trillion have already been collected and unwinding them could cause significant disruption.” he wrote.

Trump and his tariffs ran into three strong arguments in the lower courts.

First, the Constitution says Congress, not the president, has the power “to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” and a tariff is an import tax.

Second, the 1977 emergency powers law that Trump relies on does not mention tariffs, taxes or duties, and no previous president has used it to impose tariffs.

And third, the Supreme Court has frowned on recent presidents who relied on old laws to justify bold new costly regulations.

So far, however, the so-called “major questions” doctrine has been used to restrict Democratic presidents, not Republicans.

Three years ago, the court’s conservative majority struck down a major climate change regulation proposed by Presidents Obama and Biden that could have transformed the electric power industry on the grounds it was not clearly based on the Clean Air Acts of the 1970s.

Two years ago, the court by the same 6-3 vote struck down Biden’s plan to forgive hundreds of millions of dollars in student loans. Congress had said the Education Department may “waive or modify” monthly loan payments during a national emergency like the Covid 19 pandemic, but it did not say the loans may be forgiven, the court said. Its opinion noted the “staggering” cost could be more than $500 billion.

The impact of Trump’s tariffs figure to be at least five times greater, a federal appeals court said last week in ruling them illegal.

By a 7-4 vote, the federal circuit court cited all three arguments in ruling Trump had exceeded his legal authority.

“We conclude Congress, in enacting the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, did not give the president wide-ranging authority to impose tariffs,” they said.

But the outcome was not a total loss for Trump. The appellate judges put their decision on hold until the Supreme Court rules. That means Trump’s tariffs are likely to remain in effect for many months.

Trump’s lawyers were heartened by the dissent written by Judge Richard Taranto and joined by other others.

He argued that presidents are understood to have extra power when confronted with foreign threats to the nation’s security.

He called the 1977 law “an eyes-open congressional grant of broad emergency authority in this foreign-affairs realm” that said the president may “regulate” the “importation” of dangerous products including drugs coming into this country.

Citing other laws from that era, he said Congress understood that tariffs and duties are a “common tool of import regulation.”

Minutes after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth trumpeted plans to “flood” Washington with National Guard members, a senior U.S. military official took the stand in federal court in California to defend the controversial deployment of troops to Los Angeles.

The move during protests this summer has since become the model for President Trump’s increasing use of the military to police American streets.

But the trial, which opened Monday in San Francisco, turns on the argument by California that troops called up by Trump have been illegally engaged in civilian law enforcement.

“The military in Southern California are so tied in with ICE and other law enforcement agencies that they are practically indistinguishable,” California Deputy Atty. Gen. Meghan Strong told the court Tuesday.

“Los Angeles is just the beginning,” the deputy attorney general said. “President Trump has hinted at sending troops even farther, naming Baltimore and even Oakland here in the Bay Area as his next potential targets.”

Senior U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer said in court that Hegseth’s statements Monday could tip the scales in favor of the state, which must show the law is likely to be violated again so long as troops remain.

But the White House hasn’t let the pending case stall its agenda. Nor have Trump officials been fazed by a judge’s order restricting so-called roving patrols used by federal agents to indiscriminately sweep up suspected immigrants.

After Border Patrol agents last week sprang from a Penske moving truck and snatched up workers at a Westlake Home Depot — appearing to openly defy the court’s order — some attorneys warned the rule of law is crumbling in plain sight.

“It is just breathtaking,” said Mark Rosenbaum of Public Counsel, part of the coalition challenging the use of racial profiling by immigration enforcement. “Somewhere there are founding fathers who are turning over in their graves.”

The chaotic immigration arrests that swept through Los Angeles this summer had all but ceased after the original July 11 order, which bars agents from snatching people off the streets without first establishing reasonable suspicion that they are in the U.S. illegally.

An Aug. 1 ruling in the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals seemed to assure they could not resume again for weeks, if ever.

For the Department of Justice, the 9th Circuit loss was the latest blow in a protracted judicial beatdown, as many of the administration’s most aggressive moves have been held back by federal judges and tied up in appellate courts.

Trump “is losing consistently in the lower courts, almost nine times out of 10,” said Eric J. Segall, a professor at Georgia State University College of Law.

In the last two weeks alone, the 9th Circuit also found Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship unconstitutional and signaled it would probably rule in favor of a group of University of California researchers hoping to claw back funding from Trump’s war on diversity, equity and inclusion policies.

Elsewhere in the U.S., the D.C. Circuit Court appeared poised to block Trump’s tariffs, while a federal judge in Miami temporarily stopped construction at the migrant detention center known as Alligator Alcatraz.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta has noted that his Department of Justice had sued the administration nearly 40 times.

But even the breakneck pace of current litigation is glacial compared with the actions of immigration agents and federalized troops.

Federal officials have publicly relished big-footing California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, who have repeatedly warned the city is being used as a “petri dish” for executive force.

On Monday, the White House seemed to vindicate them by sending the National Guard to Washington.

Speaking for more than half an hour, Trump rattled off a list of American cities he characterized as under siege.

Asked whether he would deploy troops to those cities as well, the president said, “We’re just gonna see what happens.”

“We’re going to look at New York. And if we need to, we’re going to do the same thing in Chicago,” he said. “Hopefully, L.A. is watching.”

This image taken from video shows U.S. Border Patrol agents jumping out of a Penske box truck during an immigration raid at a Home Depot in Los Angeles, on Aug. 6, 2025.

(FOX News/Matt Finn via AP)

The U.S. Department of Justice argues that the same power that allows the president to federalize troops and deploy them on American streets also creates a “Constitutional exception” to the Posse Comitatus Act, a 19th century law that bars troops from civilian police action.

California lawyers say no such exception exists.

“I’m looking at this case and trying to figure out, is there any limitation to the use of federal forces?” Judge Breyer said.

Even if they keep taking losses, Trump administration officials “don’t have much to lose” by picking fights, said Ilya Somin, law professor at George Mason University and a constitutional scholar at the Cato Institute.

“The base likes it,” Somin said of the Trump’s most controversial moves. “If they lose, they can consider whether they defy the court.”

Other experts agreed.

“The bigger question is whether the courts can actually do anything to enforce the orders that they’re making,” said David J. Bier, an immigration expert at the Cato Institute. “There’s no indication to me that [Department of Homeland Security agents] are changing their behavior.”

Some scholars speculated the losses in lower courts might actually be a strategic sacrifice in the war to extend presidential power in the Supreme Court.

“It’s not a strategy whose primary ambition is to win,” said professor Mark Graber of the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law. “They are losing cases right and left in the district court, but consistently having district court orders stayed in the Supreme Court.”

Win or lose in the lower courts, the political allure of targeting California is potent, argued Segall, the law professor who studies the Supreme Court.

“There is an emotional hostility to California that people on the West Coast don’t understand,” Segall said. “California … is deemed a separate country almost.”

A favorable ruling in the Supreme Court could pave the way for deployments across the country, he and others warned.

“We don’t want the military on America’s streets, period, full stop,” Segall said. “I don’t think martial law is off the table.”

Pedro Vásquez Perdomo, a day laborer who is one of the plaintiffs in the Southern California case challenging racial profiling by immigration enforcement, has said the case is bigger than him.

He took to the podium outside the American Civil Liberties Union’s downtown offices Aug. 4, his voice trembling as he spoke about the temporary restraining order — upheld days earlier by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals — that stood between his fellow Angelenos and unchecked federal authority.

“I don’t want silence to be my story,” he said. “I want justice for me and for every other person whose humanity has been denied.”

WASHINGTON — The legal battle over President Trump’s move to end birthright citizenship is far from over despite his major Supreme Court victory Friday limiting nationwide injunctions.

Immigrant advocates are vowing to fight to ensure birthright citizenship remains the law as the Republican president tries to do away with a more than century-old constitutional precedent.

The high court’s ruling sends cases challenging the president’s birthright citizenship executive order back to the lower courts. But the ultimate fate of Trump’s policy remains uncertain.

Here’s what to know about birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court’s ruling and what happens next.

What does birthright citizenship mean?

Birthright citizenship makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally.

The practice goes back to soon after the Civil War, when Congress ratified the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, in part to ensure that Black people, including formerly enslaved Americans, had citizenship.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,” the amendment states.

Thirty years later, Wong Kim Ark, a man born in the U.S. to Chinese parents, was refused reentry into the U.S. after traveling overseas. His suit led to the Supreme Court explicitly ruling that the amendment gives citizenship to anyone born in the United States, no matter their parents’ legal status.

It has been seen since then as an intrinsic part of U.S. law, with only a few exceptions, such as for children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats.

Trump’s longtime goal

Trump signed an executive order upon assuming office in January that seeks to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. The order is part of the president’s hard-line anti-immigration agenda, and he has called birthright citizenship a “magnet for illegal immigration.”

Trump and his supporters focus on one phrase in the amendment — “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” — which they contend means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally.

A series of federal judges have said that’s not true and issued nationwide injunctions stopping his order from taking effect.

“I’ve been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,” U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said at a hearing this year in his Seattle courtroom.

In Greenbelt, Md., a Washington suburb, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that “the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed” Trump’s interpretation of birthright citizenship.

Is Trump’s order constitutional?

The high court’s ruling was a major victory for the Trump administration in that it limited an individual judge’s authority in granting nationwide injunctions. The administration hailed the ruling as a monumental check on the powers of individual district court judges, whom Trump supporters have argued are usurping the president’s authority with rulings blocking his priorities on immigration and other matters.

But the Supreme Court did not address the merits of Trump’s bid to enforce his birthright citizenship executive order.

“The Trump administration made a strategic decision, which I think quite clearly paid off, that they were going to challenge not the judges’ decisions on the merits, but on the scope of relief,” said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor.

Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi told reporters at the White House that the administration is “very confident” that the high court will ultimately side with the administration on the merits of the case.

Uncertainty ahead

The justices kicked the cases challenging the birthright citizenship policy back down to the lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the new ruling. The executive order remains blocked for at least 30 days, giving lower courts and the parties time to sort out the next steps.

The Supreme Court’s ruling leaves open the possibility that groups challenging the policy could still get nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits and seek certification as a nationwide class. Within hours after the ruling, two class-action suits had been filed in Maryland and New Hampshire seeking to block Trump’s order.

But obtaining nationwide relief through a class action is difficult as courts have put up hurdles to doing so over the years, said Suzette Malveaux, a Washington and Lee University law school professor.

“It’s not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem of not having nationwide relief,” said Malveaux, who had urged the high court not to eliminate the nationwide injunctions.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who penned the court’s dissenting opinion, urged the lower courts to “act swiftly on such requests for relief and to adjudicate the cases as quickly as they can so as to enable this Court’s prompt review” in cases “challenging policies as blatantly unlawful and harmful as the Citizenship Order.”

Opponents of Trump’s order warned there would be a patchwork of policies across the states, leading to chaos and confusion without nationwide relief.

“Birthright citizenship has been settled constitutional law for more than a century,” said Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, president and chief executive of Global Refuge, a nonprofit that supports refugees and migrants. “By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear.”

Sullivan and Richer write for the Associated Press. AP writers Mark Sherman and Lindsay Whitehurst in Washington and Mike Catalini in Trenton, N.J., contributed to this report.

The nation’s federal judges — including appointees of presidents of both parties, Donald Trump’s among them — have been the bulwark against Trump’s reign of lawlessness on deportations, spending, federal appointments and more. Repeatedly, lower courts have been standing up for the Constitution and federal law, trying to constrain a president contemptuous of both, at demonstrable danger to themselves. But too often, the administration disregards their orders.

You’d think the Supreme Court — in particular Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the overseer of the judicial branch — would have the lower courts’ backs. But no, as the high court’s conservative majority shamefully showed in a ruling on Monday.

That decision in one of many deportation challenges wasn’t the court’s first such display of deference to a president who doesn’t reciprocate. And, safe bet, it won’t be the last.

The court allowed the Trump administration to at least temporarily continue deporting migrants to countries not their own, unsafe ones at that, with little or no notice and no chance to legally argue that they could face torture or worse. No matter that lives are at stake — the justices blithely lifted an injunction by Judge Brian E. Murphy, of the U.S. District Court in Boston, that had blocked the administration’s slapdash deportations while legal challenges wend through the courts.

In a blistering 19-page dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, marshaled legal arguments, damning examples of Trump administration dissembling and defiance of lower courts, and warnings of more defiance of federal courts from an emboldened president.

In contrast, the ruling from the Supreme Court majority was just one paragraph — unsigned legal mumbo-jumbo, its decision wholly unexplained, as is typical in the cases that the court takes all too frequently on an emergency basis, the aptly named “shadow docket.” (In two other shadow docket rulings in May, Trump was allowed to revoke the legal status of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans, Cubans, Nicaraguans and Haitians, many of whom were here under programs created to protect refugees from violent, impoverished and repressive countries. Why? Who knows?)

What’s all the more maddening about the Supreme Court’s opacity in overriding both Judge Murphy and an appeals court that backed him is that its preliminary support for Trump in this case contradicts the plain language of the justices’ unanimous ruling in April that people subject to deportation “are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal.”

“Fire up the deportation planes,” crowed a spokeswoman for the Homeland Security Department.

Such callous gloating surely didn’t surprise Sotomayor. Her dissent began, “In matters of life and death, it is best to proceed with caution. In this case, the Government took the opposite approach.” And so did her conservative colleagues.

As Sotomayor wrote, historically the Supreme Court stays a lower court order only “under extraordinary circumstances.” Typically it doesn’t grant relief when, as in this case, both district and appeals courts opposed it. And certainly it doesn’t give the government a W when the record in the case, like this one, is replete with evidence of its misconduct, including openly flouting court orders.

Examples: A judge agreed a Guatemalan gay man would face torture in his home country, yet the man was deported there anyway. The administration violated Judge Murphy’s order when it put six men on a plane to civil-war-torn South Sudan, which the U.S. considers so unsafe that only its most critical personnel remain there. And in a third case, a group was unlawfully bound to Libya before a federal judge was able to halt the flight.

Thus, Sotomayor said, the Supreme Court granted the Trump administration “relief from an order it has repeatedly defied” — an order that didn’t prohibit deportations but only required due process in advance.

As she put it, the decision to stay the order was a “gross” abuse of the justices’ discretion. It undermines the rule of law as fully as the Trump administration’s lawlessness, especially given that Americans look to the nation’s highest court as the last word on the law.

“This is not the first time the Court closes its eyes to noncompliance, nor, I fear, will it be the last,” Sotomayor said. As if on cue, the Supreme Court’s decision was followed on Tuesday by news that underscored just how dangerously misplaced the conservative justices’ deference toward Trump is.

A former Justice Department official, who was fired for truthfully testifying in court that Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia had been wrongly deported to El Salvador, blew the whistle on his former colleagues — all Trump appointees — confirming in a 27-page document that they’d connived to defy court orders. Emil Bove, Trump’s former defense lawyer and now his nominee for a federal appeals court seat, allegedly advised a group of DOJ lawyers in March to tell the courts “f— you” if — when — they tried to stop Trump’s deportations. Bove on Wednesday told the Senate he had “no recollection” of saying that; he might have denied it, as a DOJ associate did to the media, but Bove was under oath.

And the alleged phrase captures the administration’s attitude toward the judiciary, a coequal branch of government, though you’d hardly know it by the justices’ kowtowing to the executive branch. The message, while more profane, matches Trump’s own take on lower-court judges. “The Judges are absolutely out of control,” he posted in May. “Hopefully, the Supreme Court of the United States will put an END to the quagmire.”

For the sake of courageous judges who follow the law, and the rest of us, we can hope otherwise — even if the justices’ early record is mixed at best.

@Jackiekcalmes @jackiecalmes.bsky.social @jkcalmes