Justices

• The Boston Globe argues that the U.S. Supreme Court lacks a truly enforceable ethics code, relying instead on an "honor system" governed by the justices themselves. • This system contrasts sharply with other federal judges, who face strict sanctions ranging from formal reprimands and suspensions to potential impeachment referrals. • The lack of external oversight is framed as a failure of constitutional checks and balances, potentially contributing to the decline of public trust in the judiciary.

• Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan appeared before Congress on Tuesday to address the escalating security threats facing the nation's highest court. • The justices warned that increasing hostility puts the safety of the justices, their families, and the overall independence of the judiciary at significant risk. • This rare appearance highlights a growing concern over the physical security of the court in a volatile political climate.

• Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett appeared on Capitol Hill to advocate for increased security funding to address the high court's surging budget needs. • During the testimony, Justice Kagan emphasized the need for a formal enforcement mechanism to ensure security standards are met, while Justice Barrett expressed caution regarding the complexity of regulating judicial branch officials. • The request highlights growing concerns over the safety of the justices and the adequacy of current protection measures amidst a volatile political climate.

• Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett testified before Congress to request increased security funding following a rise in threats against the court. • This appearance marks the first time Supreme Court justices have testified before Congress since 2019, highlighting the urgency of the security situation. • The justices warned that political intimidation of the judiciary crosses a critical line and poses a direct danger to the safety of individual members of the court.

• Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan appeared before Congress on Tuesday to discuss judicial security, the emergency docket, and ethics. • Justice Barrett made a personal plea for increased security funding, citing specific threats directed at her and her family members. • Justice Kagan addressed the difficulty of establishing an ethics enforcement system, arguing that neither the executive nor legislative branches should control the process.

• Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett met with lawmakers on Tuesday for a regular budget hearing on Capitol Hill to discuss security funding. • Democratic Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro used the occasion to advocate for a bill banning most gifts and the implementation of an enforcement mechanism for the Court's ethics rules. • Justice Kagan expressed support for an enforcement system but cautioned that creating one is difficult, as external imposition by Congress or the President could compromise judicial independence.

• Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett testified before the Senate to advocate for an increased security budget. • The request comes in response to a significant rise in threats directed at the judiciary and its members. • This testimony highlights the growing safety concerns facing the nation's highest court amidst a volatile political climate.

• Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett are testifying before Congress to request millions of dollars in additional security funding. • This rare appearance marks the first time justices have testified before lawmakers since 2019, driven by a surge in security risks. • U.S. Marshals Service data reveals over 600 threats against federal judges in the 2023 fiscal year, following the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

• Supreme Court justices provided rare congressional testimony to discuss critical security risks and ethical considerations facing the court. • The Court has requested a budget of $228 million for the next fiscal year, representing a roughly 10% increase over the previous year's funding. • This testimony highlights the judiciary's growing need for enhanced protection and transparency amidst increasing external pressures.

• Two US Supreme Court justices testified before Congress to request $228 million (£170.3 million) in additional security funding. • The request follows a rise in threats against the judiciary, including "swatting" hoaxes and the need for bulletproof vests. • This surge in hostility follows the conclusion of the Court's June term, which included controversial rulings on voting rights, tariffs, and birthright citizenship.

• Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Representative Jamie Raskin, and Senator Ben Ray Luján have introduced legislation to impose a strict $50 limit on gifts received by Supreme Court Justices. • The bill aims to crack down on lavish gifts and align the Supreme Court's ethics rules with existing gift bans applicable to members of Congress, executive branch officials, and other judges. • This move addresses ongoing concerns regarding judicial transparency and the potential for undue influence through high-value gifts.

• Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett informed lawmakers on Tuesday that there has been a sharp increase in threats targeting her and other justices. • Barrett emphasized that these security risks are increasingly encroaching upon the personal and family lives of the court members. • The testimony serves as a formal request for Congress to allocate more funding to enhance the security measures protecting the justices.

• Supreme Court justices appeared before lawmakers on Capitol Hill for a hearing focused on enhancing judicial security, marking their first such testimony since 2019. • The rare appearance highlights growing concerns over threats against judges and their families, necessitating a review of current protection protocols. • This move matters as it signals a critical need for legislative action and increased funding to safeguard the judiciary from political violence and harassment.

• Supreme Court justices informed Congress on Tuesday that they are making a concerted effort to increase transparency regarding the "shadow docket." • The court is focusing on providing more detailed explanations for decisions made on its interim docket rather than issuing brief, unexplained orders. • This shift is a direct response to growing public and legal demands for greater accountability and clarity in the Court's emergency ruling process.

• Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett testified before House lawmakers on Tuesday regarding the judiciary's budget request. • The primary focus of the testimony is the urgent need for increased security measures to protect the judiciary. • This request highlights growing concerns over the safety of high-court officials and the legal infrastructure.

Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett appear before House lawmakers to request more security for the judiciarySupreme court justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett are testifying Tuesday in front of House lawmakers to discuss the court’s budget request, particularly the need for increased security for the judiciary.The justices appearing before lawmakers confirmed that each justice was assigned “between four and eight members of the security detail”. Continue reading...

• The Supreme Court ruled that the president possesses the authority to fire a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission, overriding protections previously established by the authorizing statute. • The author criticizes Chief Justice Roberts for using "bad history" and inconsistent precedents to reshape the federal bureaucracy to fit a specific view of executive power. • This decision is framed as a violation of republican principles, with the author arguing that such policy shifts should be achieved through elections and legislative action rather than judicial decrees.

• The Supreme Court's GOP-appointed majority ruled in favor of Republicans in a challenge against restrictions on political party spending for candidate-coordinated advertisements. • Written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the decision removes key limitations on how parties can fund and coordinate ad campaigns with their candidates. • Legal experts suggest this ruling could trigger the most significant shift in campaign finance law since the landmark Citizens United decision.

• Legal columnist Elie Honig analyzes the Supreme Court's recently concluded term to examine the influence of politics versus judicial methodology on justice voting patterns. • The analysis highlights several 6-3 decisions, specifically focusing on two recent rulings that upheld restrictive Trump-administration immigration policies. • These rulings severely limit the ability of migrants to apply for asylum and revoke temporary protected status for hundreds of thousands of Syrian and Haitian refugees.

• The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 against an executive order from the Trump administration that sought to end birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants and temporary foreign visitors. • The ruling, issued on June 30, 2026, restores the right to automatic citizenship for babies born within the United States. • This decision is significant as it prevents the administration from unilaterally redefining citizenship laws via executive action.

• The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Tuesday that the Constitution guarantees automatic birthright citizenship to virtually everyone born within the United States. • The decision directly rejects an executive order from President Donald Trump that sought to end this longstanding constitutional guarantee. • This ruling is significant as it reinforces the legal interpretation of birthright citizenship and limits the scope of executive power regarding immigration.

• The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that children born in the United States are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment, regardless of their parents' legal or temporary status. • The ruling highlights deep ideological rifts among the justices, with some arguing that the court ignored historical evidence from Reconstruction-era debates. • This decision is critical as it reinforces the legal standard for birthright citizenship, a point of contention regarding the definition of a "relationship" to the country.

• Liberal Supreme Court justices issued a blistering dissent against a ruling that expands the president's authority to fire regulators, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor comparing the power to that of the "English crown." • The decision sparks concerns over the independence of federal agencies, though Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook emphasized that the central bank must remain free from political interference to ensure sound economic stewardship. • In a separate victory for Democrats, the Court ruled in Watson v. Republican National Committee that ballots mailed on time can be counted even if they arrive after Election Day.

• Internal tensions among Supreme Court justices are becoming more visible as the court rapidly releases a series of major opinions. • These public disagreements are surfacing even as several of the term's most significant and high-stakes rulings remain pending. • The friction highlights ideological or procedural divides within the court during a critical period of judicial decision-making.

• The Supreme Court has validated the SEC's authority to use disgorgement as a remedy in securities enforcement actions. • The ruling addresses concerns that the SEC previously sought awards that exceeded the actual profits gained by defendants and directed funds to the U.S. Treasury rather than victims. • This decision is significant as it clarifies the legal boundaries of "restitution" and the SEC's power to recover illicit gains.

The chief justice defends court’s impartiality after decisions on abortion, presidential immunity and voting rightsUS chief justice John Roberts has insisted supreme court judges are not “political actors” amid outrage over its recent decision undermining the Voting Right Act, and other moves that have benefited Donald Trump and his allies.“I think, at a very basic level, people think we’re making policy decisions, we’re saying we think this is how things should be, as opposed to what the law provides,” Roberts told a conference for judges and lawyers in Hershey, Pennsylvania, on Wednesday, according to the Associated Press. “I think they view us as purely political actors, which I don’t think is an accurate understanding of what we do.” Continue reading...

• Hundreds gathered at the U.S. Supreme Court on April 29, 2026, for arguments on Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitians and Syrians, with justices scrutinizing President Trump's authority to end the program. • The bench appeared skeptical of broad executive power to revoke deportation amnesties, per reports from the hearing. • A ruling could impact thousands facing deportation and test limits on immigration executive actions ahead of midterms.

Liberal judge attacks emergency-docket rulings designed to benefit president as ‘scratch-paper musings’The supreme court justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has delivered a sustained attack on her conservative colleagues’ use of emergency orders to benefit the Trump administration, calling the orders “scratch-paper musings” that can “seem oblivious and thus ring hollow”.Jackson, the court’s newest justice, delivered a lengthy assessment of roughly two dozen court orders issued last year that allowed Donald Trump to put in place controversial policies on immigration, steep federal funding cuts and other topics, after lower courts found they were probably illegal. Continue reading...