Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued a relatively rare clarification of its earlier opinion, which lifted the injunction on the deportation of immigrants to third-party countries. In a surprising response, Judge Brian Murphy in Boston ruled that he considered his orders regarding the eight immigrants set for deportation to South Sudan to remain unchanged by the decision. The Court quickly disabused him of that notion by declaring that he was not in compliance with its order. What was most remarkable, however, was the sharp concurrence by Justice Elena Kagan who, despite voting against the original order, called out Murphy for defying the authority of the Court. It was a commendable and principled position that escaped her colleagues, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, in dissent.
In the new opinion, the justices made clear that their June 23 order applies fully to the eight immigrants in U.S. custody in Djibouti.
In their dissent, Sotomayor and Jackson appeared to overlook the implications of a district court judge’s defiance of the Court’s earlier decision. Sotomayor complained that the new order “clarifies only one thing: Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial.”
It was a curious response because the Court’s recent rulings on injunctions are intended to rein in district judges and bring them back within the system’s functional limits. Judge Murphy seemed to give a stiff arm to the Court on its clear order to lower courts.
Regardless of your views on the merits, this system cannot function with such rogue operators at the trial level. That is the message sent by the Court in its unsigned order on June 23.
In responding to Murphy’s later order saying that his orders governing the eight men would remain in effect, the Court declared that “the May 21 remedial order cannot now be used to enforce an injunction that our stay rendered unenforceable.”
Murphy even lost Kagan in the action. She stuck to principle and said that she was on the losing side of the original issue when “a majority of this Court saw things differently.” However, she concluded that “I do not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this Court has stayed.”
The concurrence was an important moment for not just Kagan but the Court as an institution. It reaffirmed the core principles that should bind all justices to the judicial process and the integrity of the Court. Conversely, Justices Sotomayor and Jackson appear entirely adrift in dissents that have become hyperbolic and unhinged.
The rebuke of Judge Murphy should have been unanimous, but Kagan’s concurrence was an important affirmation of the shared values that preserve the integrity of the Court.
Maybe Congress can get off their collective ass and defund and reorganize this monstrosity of a district court system it created.
Judge Murphy sounds like one of those Democrat judge in 1960s Mississippi defying the Civil Rights Acts and Supreme Court desegregation order opinions.
“Maybe Congress can get off their collective ass and defund and reorganize this monstrosity of a district court system it created.”
That would be nice, but as a serious possibility? You really think that there is any realistic chance that this Congress of gutless wonders, who cannot even stick to their guns regarding slashing Federal spending to cut the debt and deficit, is going to try to navigate the political minefield of renovating or dismantling the Federal district court system? IMO it would take a miracle just to get a majority to acknowledge that the Constitution makes Congress responsible for it.
The division in the Senate is to close for that to happen. The Democrats love unconstitutional rulings by the liberal judges and whine about any truly constitutional ruling even if one or two liberal justices agree. Until the voters change that it is not going to happen, and until the election process changes it will never happen.
The Republicans should have stopped the counting of people for the census and kept it the counting of citizens. It is why blue states want illegals, they get more House Reps, and why they work so hard to just give them citizenship.
Judge Murphy is another Radical Left Wing Unqualified Judge, whose wife happens to be a Democrat Activist. He thought he was so smart seeking his 5 min of fame and revealed he is totally unqualified as a Judge. It was imprtant and great Justice Kagan joined the other 6 justices and her remarks were very blunt to this Activist so called Joker Judge. The other two Justices Sotomayer and
Sorry somehow cut off when I scrolled up to check something on the article. To complete this post
and Jackson are two Unqualified very Left Wing justices who really do not belong on the Supreme Court. Everyday Justice Jackson reveals her lack of understanding of the Constitution and the law but of course she cannot define what a woman is??? Hopefully Trump will be able to pick a replacement for Sotomayer.
I congratulate Justice Kagan on her vote with the majority. Justice Jackson and Sotomayor should have joined her. Having sat on the Board of an, at-times, very contentious medical group, we often had to make certain controversial decisions. Often these came after hours of meetings and discussion, sometime over several days to weeks. Occasionally the importance of the decision required a united front so that the other members of the group could see we stood for the decision and would carry it out irrespective of our individual passions and the Chairman would ask for us (both pro and con) to come together with a unanimous vote and we did. Sometimes I was on the winning side and sometimes on the losing side but it was rare, when asked, for the Chairman not to get a unanimous vote.
Physicians are stubborn and contentious and leading them is like “herding cats” and it can leave ugly wounds. Unanimous decisions at certain times helped us stay united and focused. Otherwise the arguments would literally go on for years and wreck any chance for progress. For us it was survival strategy and it has kept us together for over 100 years.
You congratulate Kagen? Not that she cares you pompous fool.
I bet Justice Kagan would care that her name is spelled correctly, nimrod.
WHO cares. No-one.
GEB – good insights, and thank you for sharing your personal experiences. That type of comment brings color to any topic.
In the old days the Supreme Court had a similar MO, probably for similar reasons to what you describe. Dissenting opinions were a later innovation. Not that that’s necessarily bad, but when the dissent goes one step further and refuses to treat the Court’s order as binding on lower courts, that’s beyond the pale. It’s no longer an “innovation” but an “insurrection” against the Court’s authority by members of the Court itself.
Of course Justices Jackson and Sotomayor did not join. She said it out loud in a speech – I’m paraphrasing, of course. She is part of the resistance. She should recuse herself from any case win which the administration is a party.
There are many, many qualified Hispanic and Black jurists around the country, in fact the Democrats prevented a great Hispanic guy from being advanced because he was conservative, but Sotomayor and Jackson are in way over their heads and are proving every day that they should not have been nominated and should never have been confirmed.
Sotomayor is just a dolt while Jackson is not only a legal lightweight, she is also a radical critical legal theorist of the type that has invaded and taken over the law schools. This is the same disease that has infected our J schools, our Medical schools and most of our undergrad universities.
Sad to say it but we lost this battle. The left infested our education system decades ago and their efforts are coming to fruition and we are all starting to pay the price.
If Harris (or Biden if he hadn’t publicly imploded, had won the 2024 election they would have nominated more Jackson type judges all around the country and eventually the Supreme Court.
It isn’t hyperbole to say that we came one election away from being is serious trouble. It is bad enough digging out from Biden’s short four years, thank heavens we didn’t get another four.
You’re right, Hullbobby, but don’t focus only on education’s political failure to inform young voters. Ironically, it’s often the less formally educated who are voting for freedom, while the elite-educated cast ballots for servitude; progressive, and dressed up as virtue.
Meyer, thanks for your reply. I agree that It is the less formally educated young people that are voting moderately because they haven’t been indoctrinated. But the left has won the battle of the universities and with radical teacher’s unions it has infested all our schools.
Trump wants a free hand to violate any law he wants and 6 on the courts are happy to give it to him. This is what US fascism looks like. Don’t forget this is about dumping eight people in South Sudan to be murdered.
Biden on the student loan forgiveness: I know the Supreme Court has ruled, but I don’t care, I’m gonna do it anyway.
Trump, the victim of endless lawfare from the Dems: I’m going to make my arguments in the court system and comply with what they ultimately say, but that won’t stop me from aggressively pursuing the agenda for which the people elected me through the proper use of the court system.
Don’t forget this is about dumping eight people in South Sudan to be murdered.
And you know this, how exactly? Don’t forget all the young women raped and murdered by the illegal aliens that “Joe Biden” let in as a way of expanding the Dems’ voter base. In case you were asleep, we had an election in November 2024 where the people decided they wanted actual enforcement of the immigration laws that are on the books. America voted for this.
“Don’t forget all the young women raped and murdered by the illegal aliens that “Joe Biden” let in as a way of expanding the Dems’ voter base.”
That’s just the price that leftists like this clown and our own George are willing for innocent Americans to pay.
I guess that particular notion works both ways.
During the tenure of Obama, the Obamacare law came up for a vote on its legality.
The court voted for keeping the program.
Most of the cases during the Obama years worked in his favor.
And when Obama murdered someone he was at least man enough to issue the order himself. Unlike your coward fascist idol.
Are you saying Trump did not issue the order on Soleimani, same as Obama did on Bin Laden?
Replying to this idiot is pointless. He, she or it is just posting to get replies.
Like when Obama ordered the illegal murder of the American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki without any due process at all?
Yes.
Why would the government of South Sudan want to murder illegal immigrants placed in their custody by the U.S.? So. Sudan is an impoverished country and they are gladly taking the illegals in exchange for payment from the U.S. They have no motive to injure or kill them, and every motive to keep them healthy for as long as the U.S. will send money. Heck, So. Sudan would take good care of my dog if I wanted to pay them to babysit him. Your comment is completely irrational.
If Donald Trump said South Sudan was a $h!t hole, you’d call him a racist and say it’s actually a beautiful place. None of you have any credibility left.
He’s not sending them to South Sudan because he wants them murdered. He’s sending them to South Sudan to send a message to other illegal invaders. That message being that while Biden may have flown them to the American city of their choice and given them Medicare, Trump’s going to fly them to South Sudan. And he’s hoping people like you hyperventilate about it to help him get the message out.
That’s also why he named the detention centers in Florida “Alligator Alcatraz”. The illegal invaders may think twice about coming if they know they may end up in a detention center surrounded by alligators. And Trump is banking on left wingers getting all wee-weed up about it so they will amplify the message to the illegals.
I also think it’s a dig at Obama, who once mocked people who want to build a wall by saying why not build a moat stocked with alligators, too.
“. . . dumping eight people in South Sudan to be murdered.”
Those eight immigrant “darlings” were *convicted* of heinous crimes such as murder, kidnapping, child sex abuse.
South Sudan is too good for them.
Proof or just opinion?
It is a sign of the times that Kagan’s concurrence can be described as “principled.” In an earlier age, where there was more sanity, it would have been run-of-the-mill for a judge who previously dissented to treat the Court’s order as binding on lower courts. All judges, who are really judges rather than politicians in black robes, would have thought Kagan’s position unremarkable and, moreover, an assumed necessary condition for the judiciary to function.
It appears that Sotomayor and Jackson are competing for who is the most unqualified justice on the High Court. It surely is an exiting and very close race and I am not sure who is going to bring that title home. Perhaps we should open that question to on-line betting.
“It appears that Sotomayor and Jackson are competing for who is the most unqualified justice on the High Court.”
I think that contest is Jackson’s to lose. “It” (cannot use “she”, considering the disclaimer of gender comprehension) is actively, purposefully stupid, and seemingly proud of it, Sotomayor is just a natural dullard.
Professor Turley often complains about the age of rage and overheated rhetoric by others in his columns and posts. However in this post he once again says the dissents by Sotomayor and Brown have been hyperbolic and unhinged without dealing with the substance of any of their arguments. — Concerned Citizen
The dissent relies heavily on its own prior dissenting opinions as the basis for its legal conclusions. However, prior dissenting opinions are not law, they are just the opinions of justices who were out-voted by their colleagues. Perhaps you could summarize the cogent points made by the dissent that do not rely on earlier dissenting expressions?
He’s dealt with their penchant for unhinged hyperbole in other essays.
Can you imagine if President Trump ignored the rulings of the court? The democrats would be fighting right now for a seat in a skiff. These activists judges must be dealt with.
JUDICIAL LITMUS TEST:
May the right to keep and bear arms be infringed in any way?
Does Article 1, Section 8, severely limit and restrict government?
Is private property public property?
Is secession prohibited because secession is not prohibited?
Can you provide a definition for the word woman?
JUDGES INCLUDED!
To deny, disobey, flout, circumvent, misinterpret, nullify, and void the “manifest tenor” of the constitution is a crime of high office.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 2, Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
__________________
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what [their powers] forbid.”
_________________________________________________________________________________________
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
So……what happens if the district judge once again ignores the Supreme Court? At the very least I assume the President would ignore the district court order at that point. But who knows. This is essentially uncharted territory.
The court should think very carefully of setting the wrong precedent here and step on these non-elected district judges. Congress could eliminate them completely and replace them with some other system – but that may take more backbone than is remaining after this last vote and the prog/left fired up to use that big beautiful bill to clobber them in 2026
Not entirely uncharted. The Supremes could, and probably would, remove the case from that Judge’s docket. Another step, which I believe is uncharted, would be to remove ALL cases from that Judge’s docket.
This court has proven that no women should ever be appointed again!
are you forgetting about all the liberal, agenda-driven men who had previously contaminated our nation with bad rulings?
Not to discount these three sisters of the Court made an agreement that one of them should concur with the Court, looking otherwise that they definitely form a TDS voting block. I believe I may be a bit suspicious on this.
that’s true, most communists are in it for the long haul; fellow travelers on the road to a utopian world of communism.
The two standout mediocre intelligences in the SCOTUS are Justices Jackson and Sotomayor. They should never have been appointed to the court because they have diminished both its function and reputation … all for the ludicrous reason of appearances. Instead of ennobling “women of color”, the two appointments have diluted the respect for “women of color”.
Affirmative action is counterintuitive, counterproductive, and unconstitutional.
Merit alone matters and bears definitively.
Affirmative action aligns with the slogan in the Communist Manifesto: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” which puts it in diametric opposition to the thesis and Constitution of the United States of America, a position consistent with direct and mortal enemies of America.
This is a case easily adjudicated for the Founders, Framers, and adherents of the Constitution.
” They should never have been appointed to the court because they have diminished both its function and reputation”
A typical President is going to appoint a SCOTUS justice who he thinks will conform with his political philosophy. Like it or not, that is expected behavior. I point the finger of blame squarely at Republicans who were complicit in confirming these unqualified justices. I think that we all know the 3 typical GOP traitors who put Jackson on the court. As a reminder, there were 9 Republicans who voted to confirm Sotomayor. NTM that Lindsey Graham voted to advance her nomination out of the Judiciary Committee. I guess these clowns think that trading favors on legislation is more important than scrutinizing who is on the Supreme Court. I wonder how many billion dollars Graham secured for his Deep State contractor clients in exchange for advancing Sotomayor?
Agreed. And I would argue that Justice John Roberts has also diminished the court’s legitimacy and reputation.
Obamacare decision? His obvious TDS? His refusal to do more early on to rein in rogue lower courts? Etc!!! The list is long!
He cannot retire soon enough. Time to go, Roberts. You’ve done enough damage.
Oh and let’s not forget how John Roberts dealt with — or did not deal with — the Roe/Dobb’s leaker.
Who was it? What was done about it? No one knows. So much damage done. What a disgrace.
Perhaps Kagan just realized that if this action were not taken, and a precedent set, the SCOTUS will quickly become irrelevant and these district “appointed” judges will rule the land.
I am satisfied to read that Justice Kagan has realized that her opinion in the original case was flawed, and that she had the courage to conform this new opinion with the law.
Mistake at the end of the first paragraph.
For once I agree that Murphy’s action could constitute an impeachable offense. However, that trial judge will be lionized on the left and there is no way he could be convicted in the Senate and removed.
NTL, and I never thought I would say this, well done J. Kagan
The Court has not been Ordained and Established by a unanimous agreement of All the States in the Union, therefore has no authority to make any decisions .
Pay attention: “The Supreme Court of the United States is the only court specifically established by the Constitution of the United States, implemented in 1789; under the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Court was to be composed of six members—though the number of justices has been nine in its history, this number is set by Congress” Your post is in grievous error.
Sorry pal, that position was made untenable when each state agreed to the conditions of statehood.
How about citing some authority for your position other than “it’s true because I say so.”
He doesn’t have anything to cite. I gave him the exact answer but he’s too caught up in his emotions to accept it.