5-4 decision with Justice Barrett continuing to disappoint. Go here to read the decision. Those about to be deported can file habeas corpus petitions, but those petitions must be filed individually and in the districts where they are being held awaiting deportation. What this means is Texas or Louisiana Federal immigration judges hearing the petitions rather than Leftist DC Federal Circuit Court judges, and bye, bye national injunctions in regard to deportations and judges trying to elbow their way into the Oval Office with the President. A major win for the Trump Administration and the Constitution.
Justice Barrett will vote whatever Pope Francis says.
Can’t figure out what is difficult about a decision concerning staying in lanes, which is how the SCOTUS decided this. It should have been 9-0.
I don’t understand Barrett.
Someone said she became afraid when they did nothing w the protestors around her house. 🤔
Lots of theories. I think she views Trump as a menace to the Republic and is a Republican Never Trumper. Whatever the reason, she has proven a vast disappointment.
One down, several to go, including the entire concept of national injunctions issued from a Federal district court. Meanwhile, to no one’s surprise, the D.C. Circuit yesterday ruled, specifically relying on Humphrey’s Executor, that the President cannot fire members of the NLRB or other agencies Congress has purported to place beyond Executive Branch authority. That case will be in front of the Supremes soon. If Roberts caves on it, and Barrett remains in her TDS, we’re stuck with essentially a fourth branch of the government, never created by the Constitution, with powers drawn from all three of the legitimate branches. Such a deal!
If LQC is correct, then I think Justice Barrett needs to spend more time with the First Part of the Second Part of St. Thomas’s great Summa and with the writings of St. Raymond of Penafort–if for no other reason than to absorb some of their objectivity and judiciousness.
Let’s be frank: Barrett was appointed because she is a woman. Republicans at the time bragged about her being a woman, and this was also used to try to diffuse accusations that Republicans would be replacing the ultra-feminist Ginsburg with a sexist.
I’m not saying that Barrett is not conservative in some sense or that she does not have any legal chops. But I wonder if we could not have found a better candidate who would not flake out at every opportunity if we had recruited only for merit, not for sex.
Self-defense and protection of the common good. Every citizen’s civil right. If Pope Francis cares nothing for the ordinary citizen, then Pope Francis is wrong, dead wrong.
Again, Barrett ought to take the M-13 to live with her children and neighbors.
I’m sorry to say that she and I are the same sex. Too bad Barrett and those other sexist women have not read the U. S. Constitution. GRrrr.
Many of the comments are very well taken. I don’t think we can underestimate the evil power of terrorism–which controlled the largest country on earth–which was also one of the most religious countries in Europe when the Reds took over– for 70 years through its fiendish and ruthless use. Family people are particularly vulnerable to it, and the forces of evil know it! Look what they’re doing to their former friend Elon! We need to pray for Justice Barrett. BUT what we need now is that very rare someone who has the courage to withstand the barracudas while swimming with them – someone with the courage of a Trump, a Tulsi, a Kristi Noem, a Rush Limbaugh, a Mindszenty. That’s what’s called for at this hour. May God grant us all –and especially to our perhaps terrorized friend Amy–that virtue which the Establishment cabal wants to eradicate! By the way, thanks for doing your part, Don, keeping our spirits up, by continually reminding us of our true heroes–and especially of our mutual hero, Fulton Sheen.
From “What Exactly Did Justice Barrett Disagree With The Majority About In Trump v. JGG?” by Josh Blackman:
Barrett is not even willing to say the majority is wrong here. She is only willing to go along with “troubling” and “dubious.” I take it that Justice Barrett simply isn’t sure here, and would not reach this holding at this point. But does Justice Barrett disagree about the venue issue? Does she think this case properly belongs in Texas? What would a process-formalist originalist do here? I can’t tell you because Justice Barrett won’t say. This dissents reminds me of the Trump immunity decision, where it was entirely unclear what parts of the majority that Justice Barrett would join. Early in Justice Barrett’s career, she told us to “read the opinion.” Yet she writes less than any member of the Court, and frequently leaves us guessing what she actually thinks. Academics have the luxury of not addressing all issues at once, and instead we can deliberately walk through complex matters on our own timelines. Supreme Court justices do not have that luxury in fast-moving litigation.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/04/07/what-exactly-did-justice-barrett-disagree-with-the-majority-about-in-trump-v-jgg/
I trail lawyer I used to correspond with had an explanation of these national injunctions that went over my head bar that it was some sort of relict practice. I’m not understanding why a federal district judge could properly exercise any authority outside his jurisdiction.