22 Comments
User's avatar
David J. Sharp's avatar

Disgraceful. SCOTUS - via shadow docket, and without explanation - inches toward a “separate but unequal” stance that heralds back to the early Fifties. If you’re a person of color, ask Leo Leonard for a sugar daddy.

Expand full comment
Kathleen M Kendrick's avatar

Is there no humanity among that majority in the Supreme Court? And still, we hear nothing from Congress.

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

And where was Justice Kagan in this order? No dissent?

Expand full comment
ASBermant's avatar

So much for "maintaining the status quo" while litigation proceeds. This Court continues to upend decades of procedural precedent. Absolutely shameful.

As an aside, why did Justice Kagan not join the dissent???

Expand full comment
Percy's avatar
2dEdited

That's what bothers me, the seemingly new definition of "status quo." Now it means whatever Trump thinks the eventual determination should be.

Expand full comment
Dina's avatar

Sure feels that way.

Expand full comment
Christine's avatar

Hate for anyone not “white” is the theme of this administration. My heart goes out for these people. They want a better life, making huge positive impact on the community they live in and this is the thanks they get. Shame on the evil in the Whitehouse and this court

Expand full comment
Dina's avatar

Wonder what Clarence Thomas would do if (and when) the felon in the White House offered free tickets to Liberia to every person of African ancestry?

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

But what bothers me is that SCOTUS seems to take Trump’s word … a man convicted for lying to the public (the hush money case) and had to pay for his Trump U and Trump Charities falsehoods. In America, justice goes to the position, not the person.

Expand full comment
Percy's avatar

I assume KBJ did the "right" thing by referring the emergency appeal to the full court. But, boy, I'd be really, really pissed if I were her and the court majority decided to once again create new "rules" for Trump.

Expand full comment
Lillian Holsworth's avatar

The Supreme Court have lost the very basic idea of what America was built on.

Expand full comment
Joe From the Bronx's avatar

Kagan did not openly join Jackson's dissent. Formally, we don't know how she voted. She just did not publicly dissent. One assumption is that she did this strategically, waiting to publicly dissent in a more blatant case. Or, she might have agreed with the result for some reason. We don't know.

I know the drill. I am not totally satisfied with it. A person goes out with some friends, and someone badmouths one of them. A friend stands up for the targeted person. A second stands mute.

She continues to be silent after the bully leaves the restaurant. The victimized friend is mad afterwards. The silent friend assured them: I thought the person was off base. I just thought saying something would make things worse! I don't know why everyone thought I was okay with the bully!

Society usually thinks silence is a form of consent, especially when there is a means to note your opposition. Again, I know the rules, and that officially, Kagan simply didn't comment.

Expand full comment
Chris Geidner's avatar

I didn't delve into the Kagan question specifically in here, because I think it's a bit of a misdirection from the point I'm trying to focus on here, but I did make clear generally what you laid out as to her: "No other justice wrote to explain their decision, and because it was a shadow docket request, the vote is not even public."

Expand full comment
Chris Geidner's avatar

The only quibble I would have with what you wrote is your first sentence. Kagan did not join Jackson's dissent. Period. You can't silently join a dissent. You do publicly — or you do not. She chose not.

Expand full comment
Joe From the Bronx's avatar

Thanks. To be clear, I'm fine with both of your comments.

People brought it up & it touches upon a bit of a personal hobbyhorse.

The issue has been addressed by various individuals before. It was noted, for instance, that sometimes justices disagree with a result but don't openly dissent. Alito, as I recall, once later referenced such a case in a shadow docket matter. He later publicly dissented. If you want to go with "period," that's reasonable enough.

Expand full comment
ASBermant's avatar

Joe, I hear what you're saying, but as a Supreme Court Justice, Justice Kagan owes the public, no, actually, the CONSTITUTION, the knowledge of her decision particularly when the decision immediately affects a whole class of individuals. No Justice, Kagan included, should hide behind the insidious cloak of the Shadow Docket.

Expand full comment
Ezsmilin’'s avatar

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I read this post because Professor HCR referred to it in her newsletter last night. While you have provided me with some information regarding SCOTUS and their shadow docket decision, I remain skeptical about their ability to enforce the Constitution and the rule of law. The exceptions are the few justices who have actually been transparent about informing our country through their votes and opinions and are on the side of preserving our constitutional rights and freedoms while the other justices have mostly allowed our current executive branch to dictate whatever they wish to do while following the rule book of Project 2025. It’s alarming to me when I read about the reports of these decisions being made in the Supreme Court on a day by day basis because of the fact that so many federal and state justices are issuing different decisions that lead to being decided by SCOTUS.

Expand full comment
Dina's avatar

The majority of judges at the federal and district level!

Expand full comment
PR Stockhausen's avatar

It adversely affects a friend here close to home. Shame

Love one another as I have loved you.”

Expand full comment
bobbie cottrill's avatar

This is so not right, he is lawless and no one can stop him. This will effect a lot of companies (big and small) because they will lose workers. But of course as long as it does not affect his rich buddies he don't care. When are they going to wake up and see what he is doingvto this country.

Expand full comment
Jarno Jokinen's avatar

"The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday issued an order allowing the Trump administration to end immigration programs during litigation that provided legal status for about 500,000 people." Worst is yet to come. Donald "The Beast" Trump is building a wall once again. Colossal tariff wall that is the beginning of the end for the system of down. At first the beast will pull the plug out of the global economy. The worst financial crisis of human history will pull a swarm of the banks underwater and the bank run begins. Then the beast will collapse a mountain of debt shattering the backbone of the monetary system causing a systemic risk to realize. Finally the beast will cast American citizens into a system slavery under the name of Ronald Wilson Reagan, just to "honor his legacy" count the number. After the destruction a new world order will be established in the US. And the Golden Age begins from the ruins of the world wide collapse. All of the system slaves will love it. No more cash - just digital transactions. No more traditional criminal activity. No more tax evasion. No more transactions without the "all seeing eye". Outcasts will hate the world without freedom, hope and privacy. To cover up the mess and distract the public by smoke and mirrors, the beast will engage in a war with Iran. Lies and deceit, corruption and decay, dancing on the graves will continue. Until; Black hole sun, won't you come, won't you come... I want to play a game. Time has come to opt out of the empire of filth. Live or die...

Expand full comment
Susan Linehan's avatar

I'm sure that you have covered this elsewhere, but I can't put my finger on where. What is the underlying issue still to be litigated on the TPS and parole issues? Both were granted according to the relevant statutes and are governed by CFRs. Is this issue whether Noem followed the procedures of the APA in revoking the statuses?

Expand full comment