SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
us supreme court
'Legislating From the Bench,' Supreme Court Greenlights Trump Firing of Labor Regulators
Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent that the president believes the 90-year precedent "should be either overruled or confined... And he has chosen to act on that belief—really, to take the law into his own hands."
May 22, 2025
In a decision that alarmed legal experts, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday blocked the reinstatement of two labor regulators fired by President Donald Trump in apparent violation of federal law intended to prevent such ousters for political reasons.
The Trump administration asked the high court—which has a right-wing supermajority—to block orders from the District Court for the District of Columbia against the president's removal of Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) Member Cathy Harris and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Member Gwynne Wilcox.
An unsigned two-page opinion—from which the three liberals dissented—provides the Trump administration that relief, but the majority declined to take up the cases more fully, meaning they will play out U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The Hillnoted that the move "leaves both agencies without a quorum required to conduct certain business in the meantime."
In her fiery dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that "for 90 years, Humphrey's Executor v. United States... has stood as a precedent of this court. And not just any precedent. Humphrey's undergirds a significant feature of American governance: bipartisan administrative bodies carrying out expertise-based functions with a measure of independence from presidential control."
While the MSPB and NLRB are the focus of this case, "there are many others," she continued. "The current president believes that Humphrey's should be either overruled or confined... And he has chosen to act on that belief—really, to take the law into his own hands."
"Our Humphrey's decision remains good law, and it forecloses both the president's firings and the court's decision to award emergency relief," Kagan added. "Our emergency docket, while fit for some things, should not be used to overrule or revise existing law."
Big, bad legal news from "the shadow docket." 6-3 overturning the stay in Wilcox, the NLRB case. Less than 2 pages of assertions that have been proven historically incorrect. A preview of expanding presidential power and allowing the Trump removals: www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...
[image or embed]
— Jed H. Shugerman (@jedshug.bsky.social) May 22, 2025 at 5:52 PM
Slate's Mark Joseph Stern similarly stressed the significance of Thursday's development on social media, writing that "the Supreme Court just effectively overruled 90 years of precedent on the shadow docket, greenlighting Trump's firing of multimember agency leaders while their cases are pending—despite Congress' effort to protect them against removal. A huge decision."
"The Supreme Court goes out of its way to say that its order today does NOT allow Trump to remove members of the Federal Reserve because it is 'uniquely structured' and has a 'distinct history tradition,'" he noted. "I do not think those distinctions hold water."
The right-wing justices' opinion states that "Gwynne Wilcox and Cathy Harris contend that arguments in this case necessarily implicate the constitutionality of for-cause removal protections for members of the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors or other members of the Federal Open Market Committee."
"We disagree," the court's majority said. "The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States."
Multiple other court watchers echoed Stern's take on social media.
They’re not only overturning precedent on the shadow docket, but ~deciding~ other cases in a non-binding (dicta) way to give cover for these actions. Today, this unnamed group of conservative justices, not even claiming this is “per curiam,” say that the Federal Reserve is different. Sure.
[image or embed]
— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) May 22, 2025 at 5:12 PM
"I don't mean to be a caricature, but this just isn't law. The Supreme Court is always making policy. But this is beyond," said Noah Rosenblum, a New York University associate law professor law, summarizing the decision. "'This dicta in an emergency order will reassure the markets but just, uh, trust us on the law here, OK, no we're not overruling Humphrey's yet, and when we do we'll spare the Fed.'"
Christine Kexel Chabot, a Marquette University associate law professor law, said: "The court is legislating from the bench: It has eliminated removal restrictions it finds unimportant while keeping those it finds too consequential to kill (the Fed). Article II provides an undifferentiated grant of 'the executive power,' not one that applies to the NLRB and excepts the Fed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Split Supreme Court Won't Allow First Religious Public Charter School in US
Although another case could soon come before the high court, the ACLU still welcomed that, for now, "public schools must remain secular and welcome all students, regardless of faith."
May 22, 2025
Public education and First Amendment advocates on Thursday celebrated the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to allow the nation's first religious public charter school in Oklahoma—even though the outcome of this case doesn't rule out the possibility of another attempt to establish such an institution.
"Requiring states to allow religious public schools would dismantle religious freedom and public education as we know it," Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the ACLU, said in a statement about the 4-4 decison. "Today, a core American constitutional value remains in place: Public schools must remain secular and welcome all students, regardless of faith."
Wang's group and other partners had filed a lawsuit over St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School on behalf of parents, faith leaders, and public school advocates. Her colleague Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, declared Thursday that "the very idea of a religious public school is a constitutional oxymoron."
The new one-page opinion states that "the judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court," which means the Oklahoma Supreme Court's June 2024 ruling against St. Isidore remains in place. There are nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court, but Justice Amy Coney Barrett—who is part of its right-wing supermajority—recused herself from this case.
"While Justice Barrett did not provide an explanation for her recusal, it may be because she is close friends with Nicole Stelle Garnett, a professor at Notre Dame Law School who was an early adviser for St. Isidore," The New York Timesnoted. "Although justices sometimes provide reasons when they recuse themselves, they are not required to do so."
Law Dork's Chris Geidner warned that "a new challenge not requiring her recusal could easily return to the court in short order—especially now that the court has shown its interest in taking on the issue."
In this case, as Common Dreams reported during oral arguments last month, Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to be the deciding vote. Geidner pointed out Thursday that while it seems most likely that he sided with the three liberals, "even that could have been as much of a vote to put off a decision as a substantive ruling on the matter."
Some groups happy with the outcome in this case also highlighted that the battle is expected to continue.
"This is a crucial, if narrow, win for constitutional principles," Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor said in a statement. "A publicly funded religious charter school would have obliterated the wall of separation between state and church. We're relieved that, at least for now, the First Amendment still means what it says."
"The fight isn't over," Gaylor added. "The forces trying to undermine our public schools and constitutional freedoms are already regrouping. FFRF will continue to defend secular education and the rights of all Americans to be free from government-imposed religion."
Leading teachers unions also weighed in with both an amicus brief submitted to the high court and Thursday statements.
"Educators and parents know that student success depends on more resources in our public schools, not less. Yet for too long, we have seen anti-public education forces attempt to deprive public school students of necessary funding and support," National Education Association president Becky Pringle said Thursday. "We are gratified that the Supreme Court did not take the radical step of upending public education by requiring states to have religious charter schools."
American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten also welcomed that the high court on Thursday let stand the Oklahoma decision, "which correctly upheld the separation of church and state and backed the founders' intention to place religious pluralism over sectarianism."
"We are grateful that it upheld the state's highest court's clear and unambiguous ruling to preserve and nurture the roots of our democracy, not tear up its very foundations," Weingarten said in a statement. "We respect and honor religious education. It should be separate from public schooling."
"Public schools, including public charter schools, are funded by taxpayer dollars because they are dedicated to helping all—not just some—children have a shot at success," she stressed. "They are the bedrock of our democracy, and states have long worked to ensure that they remain secular, open, and accessible to all."
This article has been updated with comment from the National Education Association.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Supreme Court Hears Birthright Citizenship Case, Trump Ripped for Attack on Core Constitutional Right
"Any effort to narrow or lift the nationwide injunction on this case would lead to chaos, allowing birthright citizenship to be denied in some states but not others," one campaigner warned.
May 15, 2025
As President Donald Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship got a "frosty" reception at the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, opponents of the Republican's executive order renewed criticism of both that and his broader anti-migrant agenda.
"The Constitution is crystal clear: All persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States. As was reaffirmed in court this morning, birthright citizenship is a foundational American principle that has strengthened our communities, our families, and our whole country for generations," FWD.us president Todd Schulte said in a statement after oral arguments.
"Any effort to narrow or lift the nationwide injunction on this case would lead to chaos, allowing birthright citizenship to be denied in some states but not others," he continued. "If the Supreme Court sides with the government, the country will be split in half, with some states granting citizenship to newborn babies and the others denying it. The human cost of siding with the government cannot be overstated."
Schulte warned that "children born in the United States could be denied healthcare, nutrition, Social Security numbers, and other essential services that Congress has made available to all citizens. Children could be subject to deportation even though their parents (for example, someone with a lawful work visa) could not be legally deported."
"It is not a stretch to believe that an administration that is paying other countries to indefinitely detain immigrants will leverage the threats to deport this new undocumented class of children to force whole families here legally to leave the U.S.," he added. "The Supreme Court should be as clear as the Constitution, and rule that ending birthright citizenship, even partially or temporarily, is wrong, unlawful, and should not be allowed."
According toPolitico:
Trump's executive order purporting to end birthright citizenship found no traction Thursday at the Supreme Court, but the justices sounded inclined to rein in a legal remedy judges have used to halt many of Trump's early policy moves, from restricting immigration to cutting federal spending to ending anti-diversity initiatives.
Three district judges have deployed that tool—known as a nationwide injunction—to block Trump from implementing his birthright citizenship order. None of the justices spoke up in defense of the order's legality during more than two hours of oral arguments, and several suggested that the order is almost surely unconstitutional.
The Associated Pressreported that Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices Thursday that judges have issued 40 nationwide injunctions since Trump returned to office for a second term in January.
The high court—which has a right-wing supermajority that includes three Trump appointees—is expected to rule by June. A decision limiting the power of federal judges could impact various other ongoing cases.
As the ACLU said on social media: "Today, the Supreme Court considered judges' power to block unlawful actions by the Trump administration. While this wasn't our case, we're united in mission to protect our civil liberties."
If the President is arguing to strip federal judges of the power to stop him from flagrantly violating the 14th Amendment citizenship rights of Americans - literally rendering some children stateless persons - that context is germane to argument about the legitimate use of the federal court’s power.
[image or embed]
— Sherrilyn Ifill (@sifill.bsky.social) May 15, 2025 at 5:58 PM
Congresswoman Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), a daughter of immigrants and citizen by birthright, responded to Trump's order by introducing federal legislation on Thursday that would block his attack on the core constitutional right: the Born in the USA Act.
"Trump has posed the question of who gets to be an American. The fact is that every citizen not naturalized in this country is a citizen by birthright. And it is important to remember that our nation's history would not be complete without the children of immigrants who, like me, are citizens by birthright and pride themselves on being AMERICANS," Ramirez said in a statement.
"I am both a daughter of immigrants and the daughter of America; a proud Chapina and an American by birthright," she highlighted. "It is my honor to lead 109 members of Congress to ensure not a single dollar goes to Trump's illegal, unconstitutional attempt to undermine our Constitution, our rights, our liberties, and the soul of our nation."
Although Ramirez's bill is unlikely to advance, given that Republicans control not only the White House but also both chambers of Congress, its supporters include Hispanic Caucus Chair Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.), Asian Pacific American Caucus Chair Grace Meng (D-N.Y.), Black Caucus Chair Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), and Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.).
The companion bill, introduced by Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) in February, has support from 14 other members of the Senate Democratic Caucus. The legislation is also backed by several local and national groups, including the ACLU, National Immigration Law Center, FWD.us, Haitian Bridge Alliance, Immigration Hub, UndocuBlack, and more.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular