National Review
Supreme Court Drives a Stake Through Hawaii’s ‘Vampire Rule’
This was the right result, but the decision should have been unanimous.
Center Right
Politics - CBSNews.com
Supreme Court sides with Monsanto in case over cancer risks from weedkiller
Center
The Supreme Court ruled that Monsanto cannot be held liable under state laws for failing to warn consumers about the alleged cancer risks of its weedkiller Roundup on its label.
Compare Perspectives
Found 8 stories
Blaze Media
Supreme Court sides with Trump administration regarding asylum-seekers
The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin and the Trump administration regarding when asylum-seekers officially "arrive" in the U.S.In a 6-3 decision split along ideological lines, the Court held that aliens seeking asylum do not “arrive in the United States” until they physically cross the border into the country and therefore are not entitled to inspection by border officials until they have entered onto U.S. soil.'An alien "arrives in the United States" only when he crosses the border.'The case stems from the federal government’s “metering” policy — first adopted in 2016 amid a surge of migrants at the southern border — that limited the number of aliens whom Customs and Border Patrol agents would inspect each day for asylum. When a port of entry reached capacity, officials physically prevented additional aliens from entering until capacity became available again. In 2017, asylum-seekers and Al Otro Lado, an immigration advocacy organization, brought forward a class-action lawsuit arguing that the federal government was unlawfully denying aliens access to asylum procedures. The federal district court in Southern California granted summary judgment in favor of the noncitizens and declared the government’s policy unlawful. The metering policy was then discontinued in November 2021, though the second Trump administration has attempted to revive it. A divided Ninth Circuit panel affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that an alien “arrives in the United States” when said alien — even while standing on the Mexico side of the border — encounters a U.S. official and thus must be inspected for asylum claims. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito reversed the lower court’s ruling. The court held that the meaning of “arrives in the United States” requires physically entering the country. Therefore, under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, an alien standing on the Mexico side of the border is not entitled to inspection by a U.S. official. “We hold that an alien who is standing in Mexico does not ‘arriv[e] in the United States’ by attempting, and failing, to set foot in this country. An alien ‘arrives in the United States’ only when he crosses the border,” Alito wrote.RELATED: Ketanji Brown Jackson melts down over SCOTUS ruling against Hawaii gun law: 'The court's objective is protecting guns' U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justices Samuel Alito (L) and Clarence Thomas (R).Chip Somodevilla/POOL/AFP/Getty ImagesThe court highlighted the text of other INA provisions and subsequent amendments to the statute to indicate that Congress intended asylum and inspection rights to apply only after an alien enters the country. “That Congress amended §1158(a) in IIRIRA to replace ‘at a land border or port of entry’ with ‘arrives in the United States’ suggests that we should not read those phrases — which carry different ordinary meanings — to have the same meaning.”Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented, arguing that Congress intended border officials to inspect and process all aliens who present themselves at ports of entry, regardless of whether they have physically stepped into the U.S. The dissent contended that the majority’s decision “ignores the statutory context and history” of the INA and weakens the asylum protections Congress created for people fleeing persecution. "The Court today holds that the Executive Branch may circumvent all these mandatory procedures by having U.S. immigration officers stand at the border and physically block noncitizens from setting a foot onto U.S. soil.” Sotomayor added, "The Court's illogical interpretation is driven almost entirely by a fixation on a single word: 'in.'"Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Right
NBC News Politics
Supreme Court allows Trump to end protected status for Haitian and Syrian immigrants
The Supreme Court has ruled to allow the Trump administration to end the Temporary Protected Status for thousands of immigrants from Haiti and Syria. NBC News' Gary Grumbach reports on the court's split among ideological lines and how the ruling impacts the administration's immigration policies.
Center Left
US news | The Guardian
US supreme court strikes down Hawaii’s gun restrictions in major second amendment ruling
The law banned people from carrying guns in most public spaces and private property without owner’s permissionUS politics live – latest updatesSign up for the Breaking News US email to get newsletter alerts in your inboxThe US supreme court struck down a restrictive gun law in the state of Hawaii that bans people from carrying guns in certain public spaces and on private property without the permission of the property’s owner.The decision was made in a 6-3 vote, with Justice Samuel Alito offering the majority opinion – backed by the other members of the court’s rightwing supermajority – and Ketanji Brown Jackson writing the dissent. Continue reading...
Center Left
Blaze Media
Ketanji Brown Jackson melts down over SCOTUS ruling against Hawaii gun law: 'The court's objective is protecting guns'
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled four years ago in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen that the Second and 14th Amendments protect Americans' right to carry handguns outside of their homes for self-defense. Hawaii Democrats came up with an apparent workaround to curb gun rights in their state, passing a law in 2023 that banned the carrying of guns onto private property without verbal or written consent of the property owner. Those who ran afoul of this law faced up to a year in prison.'Hawaii's law does not restrict the right to carry a gun at all,' Jackson wrote.This didn't sit well with a trio of Maui County residents with concealed-carry permits who, with the Hawaii Firearms Coalition, sued on the basis of the understanding articulated again by Solicitor General D. John Sauer last year: "Because most property owners do not post signs either allowing or forbidding guns, Hawaii’s default rule functions as a near-complete ban on public carry."To the great chagrin of liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the Supreme Court determined in a 6-3 ruling on Thursday that Hawaii's so-called "vampire law" is unconstitutional.The court, which reversed a 2024 decision from the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Appeals Court, noted that law-abiding permit-holders "not only must ... take care to avoid all the territory where the possession of a gun is prohibited outright, but they may also be barred from entering many places that people routinely visit in the course of their daily routines, such as gas stations, restaurants, and stores."While recognizing the right of establishments that are open to the public "to admit or exclude persons who are carrying guns for self-defense under either the common-law rule or Hawaii’s law," the court noted that the so-called vampire law "flips the default rule at common law, under which anyone has an implied license to enter property held open to the public unless the property owner withdraws consent."Justice Samuel Alito noted in the opinion that the "regime" established in Hawaii "hobbles what the Second Amendment protects: the right of Americans to carry arms for self-defense as they go about their daily lives."RELATED: ‘Shall not be infringed’ — even if you're high, Supreme Court rules Maxine Wallace/The Washington Post/Getty ImagesJackson was once again of a different mind than her conservative colleagues on the meaning of the "right to bear arms."At the outset of her dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Jackson framed — in Orwellian fashion — Hawaii's infringement on Americans' constitutional rights as an effort to "protect the rights of its residents — both those who wish to carry guns and those who prefer that guns are not carried on their private property without their express permission."Jackson —who repeatedly stressed that she still disagrees with the decision in Bruen, calling it a "grave mistake" — claimed that "the court's objective is protecting guns, not consistently preserving any principle of law."According to Jackson, the vampire law that effectively requires law-abiding citizens to everywhere obtain consent before exercising their Second Amendment right not only "does not implicate the Second Amendment" — "Hawaii's law does not restrict the right to carry a gun at all."The liberal justice apparently assigns state law and custom greater weight than federal law on the matter of guns, stressing that "recognizing state autonomy in this respect is especially appropriate here, since Hawaii has never had a custom of armed carry."Jackson concluded her 32-page dissent with yet another attack on her colleagues, writing, "While purporting to constrain judges, the majority has unmasked the discretionary choices that lie beneath the court’s decisions regarding which analogues are 'vastly different' ... and whose historical experiences are worthy of inclusion."Justice Elena Kagan wrote a separate dissenting opinion.This ruling will reportedly impact a handful of blue states, including New York, Maryland, and California, which took a similar approach to Hawaii.John Commerford, executive director of the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action, said of the outcome, "Law-abiding gun owners will no longer be forced to beg for special permission simply to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms in public places."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Right
NBC News Politics
Supreme Court strikes down Hawaii’s ‘vampire rule’ for gun owners
The Supreme Court struck down a Hawaii gun restriction that limits when people can carry firearms on certain private properties, known as the “vampire rule.”
Center Left
The New Republic
The Supreme Court’s War on Congress
The Supreme Court decided two cases on Tuesday that, at least at first glance, have nothing to do with one another. One involves the People’s Republic of China, Silicon Valley, and the Judiciary Act of 1789. The other involves Louisiana prisons, Rastafarian spiritual beliefs, and contract law. In both cases, however, are two shared and recurring impulses from the court’s conservative majority: a nearly boundless contempt for Congress as an institution.The first case, Cisco Systems v. Doe, involves a group of plaintiffs who claim that the Chinese government has persecuted them for their religious beliefs. They filed lawsuits against Cisco, a major U.S. tech company, alleging that the company sold surveillance software to the Chinese government that was later used to surveil, torture, and otherwise abuse them.In theory, no federal law is any more “constitutional” than another. But laws from the First Congress tend to be seen as indicative of how the Constitution’s Framers intended the government to function. Among the early laws they passed was the Alien Tort Statute, or ATS, which allows federal courts to hear “any civil action” against a foreign national for any “tort” that was “committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.”Congress enacted the ATS as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789—the first federal law it enacted to structure the federal courts. Though it was only occasionally invoked in those courts until the 1980s, one might think that its founding-era pedigree might entitle it to a little more respect. Apparently not. The modern-day aversion to this long-standing law was on display in the 2004 case Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, a complex case about whether a man arrested by federal agents on drug charges could sue a Mexican national for temporarily apprehending him.In his majority opinion, Justice David Souter wrote that the ATS “was originally understood to be available to enforce a small number of international norms that a federal court could properly recognize as within the common law enforceable without further statutory authority.” Those norms included “offenses against ambassadors, violation of safe conducts, and piracy.” Accordingly, he rejected Sosa’s more novel claim against Alvarez-Machain.Does this mean that only that “small number” of claims described by Souter could be pursued under the ATS? Souter said no. He left open the possibility that the high court might recognize future implied claims beyond the more traditional ones. Justice Antonin Scalia took the opposite approach. He wrote in a partially dissenting opinion that he disagreed with the majority’s “reservation of a discretionary power in the federal judiciary to create causes of action for the enforcement of international-law-based norms.”Scalia argued that this approach would “amount to judicial lawmaking” that the federal courts are “neither authorized nor suited to perform.” Souter, on the other hand, took a more deferential approach to the framework that Congress had created in the ATS. He noted that Congress could correct the court’s work through its own legislative powers by amending the ATS itself or adding new constraints to it through separate legislation.“While we agree with Justice Scalia to the point that we would welcome any congressional guidance in exercising jurisdiction with such obvious potential to affect foreign relations, nothing Congress has done is a reason for us to shut the door to the law of nations entirely,” Souter explained. “It is enough to say that Congress may do that at any time (explicitly, or implicitly by treaties or statutes that occupy the field) just as it may modify or cancel any judicial decision so far as it rests on recognizing an international norm as such.”The court’s conservative majority was never satisfied with that ruling. In case after case over the past 20 years, the justices repeatedly narrowed the scope of ATS claims, including by ruling that it could not be used to sue foreign corporations and by holding that domestic corporations can’t be sued for “general corporate activity” linked to human rights abuses. In Cisco, Justice Amy Coney Barrett finally transformed Scalia’s dissent in Sosa into the court’s new majority opinion.“Since Sosa was decided, we have firmly committed to the view that judicially created causes of action offend the separation of powers in almost every circumstance,” Barrett wrote. “As a result, we have virtually eliminated the practice of fashioning them.” She finished the job by “clos[ing] the door that Sosa cracked to judicially created ATS liability.” The Supreme Court’s rulings on these matters are often described as “closing the courthouse door” on wronged plaintiffs, but rarely by the majority itself.Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing in dissent, chastised the majority for its transparent about-face.
Left
Alternet.org
Legal experts lash out at 'racist' Supreme Court ruling
Legal analysts and scholars are lashing out at the U.S. Supreme Court conservatives after another round of decisions.Taking to social media on Thursday morning, commentators trashed one ruling in particular: President Donald Trump's decision to block asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border. The case concerned the temporary protected status (TPS) for Haitian immigrants, which the U.S. had allowed until Trump paused it in 2021. The law states that any noncitizen who is “physically present in the United States” or “arrives in the United States” can apply for asylum. Anyone who announces that they seek protection are entitled to have their claim evaluated, according to the Constitution. What the High Court did was play on the technicality of the asylum seekers' location. "The Supreme Court’s rightwing majority rules that courts cannot review the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to terminate temporary protected status for refugees fleeing particularly dangerous countries," complained Kate Riga, who covers the Supreme Court for TPM."In effect, this means that thousands of Haitian and Syrian refugees will be sent back to places so dangerous that, in Haiti’s case, the State Department recommends leaving behind dental records to help identify remains," she added before bashing Justice Samuel Alito's ruling, in particular, as "racist."New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie also bashed Alito by paraphrasing the justice. "Sam Alito: It is the worst kind of discrimination to create majority-minority congressional districts and so we are going to kill the Voting Rights Act. Also, Sam Alito: There is nothing we can do if the president cancels legal status because he thinks the United States is a white country," said Bouie. "It is abundantly clear from Alito's jurisprudence that he thinks the only real racism is discrimination against white people," Bouie added. "Like, this is sophistry. Why does the administration oppose TPS Justice Alito? Why does it reject asylum claims from virtually every group of people other than white South Africans?"Jerry Edwards, associate professor of law at West Virginia University, wrote, "Samuel Alito shares Andrew Johnson's vision of the Constitution." Johnson was widely considered a white supremacist, the Constitution Center explains. As Politico's Kyle Cheney cited, "SCOTUS majority says there are 'race-neutral' reasons why Trump/Noem ended TPS but notes that their commentary on Haitian immigrants would have 'scandalized the public just a short time ago.'"Lawfare editor Tyler McBrian commented, "Every SCOTUS opinion now is like "in a 6-3 opinion, the Court rules that doctors can start prescribing cocaine to children again."Constitutional scholar Robert Black wrote, "Y'know how I'm always saying that when people say 'I'm not racist' what they mean is 'I am correct in my racist beliefs?' Well, uhhh, Supreme Court edition..."One responder asked, "So is the idea here that courts are obligated to see if they can construct even a ludicrous non-racist rationale for a policy before they can rule against it?"Edwards replied to the comment saying, "Only if the conservatives want to rule in favor of the government. Not long ago, Thomas and Alito had an absolute meltdown when SCOTUS denied cert in a case race-neutral affirmative action case because they claimed two of the school board members made racist comments (proving it was an AA policy)."But Alito wasn't the only one drawing criticism. Justice Clarence Thomas penned his own individual opinion on the matter. As appellate attorney Gabriel Malor wrote on BlueSky, "Justice Thomas, writing only for himself, says that the Fifth Amendment's due process clause does not guarantee equal protection."He referenced Thomas' statement saying, "Because the Fifth Amendment has no Equal Protection Clause, this Court was wrong to read equal protection into it in Bolling v. Sharpe ... And even the Due Process Clause does not prohibit some discrimination, it would not do so in a case about immigration status."Associate Professor Evan Bernick at the University of Illinois School of Law said he would refrain from yelling about the ruling at length. Instead, he wrote, "I'm just going to observe that the equal protection analysis is almost entirely unsupported by citations to relevant authority. There's a cursory cite to one leading opinion and then a bunch of handwaving. Nothing in the Constitution or even SCOTUS doctrine — even at its worst — requires that we think about race in the context of immigration decisions this way, and we simply should not."
Left