Final Day of Oral Arguments Marks Busy Week for Justices
Today concludes the oral arguments for this term, bringing a whirlwind week for the Supreme Court justices to a close.
On Tuesday evening, six Republican-appointed judges attended a state dinner at the White House in honor of King Charles III and Queen Camilla, while the three Democratic-appointed judges were notably absent. While it’s unclear if they were invited, prevailing commentary suggests they were not, echoing sentiments expressed by comedian Bill Maher.
In an interesting turn, Justice Samuel Alito was reportedly seen shopping for formal wear in Georgetown, a sight that Politico linked to the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner. It’s unlikely Alito would attend such an event, raising questions about the purpose of his evening attire, especially since he likely needed to don a white tie and tails for the state dinner.
Earlier that day, retired Justice Stephen Breyer attended the King’s address to Parliament, during which he managed to catch the monarch’s attention for a brief exchange. It has been suggested that Breyer wished to express gratitude for the Supreme Court’s multiple references to the Magna Carta—a fact acknowledged by the Supreme Court Historical Society through a formal email.
Inside a packed courtroom this morning, Chief Justice Jaime Santos of Goodwin Proctor engaged in speculation about forthcoming verdicts, predicting that the contentious voting rights case, Louisiana v. Calais, would take center stage. I disagreed, suggesting that it was unlikely to be decided on the same day as Marin v. Doe, a case challenging former Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem’s revocation of temporary protected status for Haitian and Syrian nationals.
While judges may stand as they deliberate, formal attire is notably absent in the courtroom. Chief Justice John Roberts confirmed that Justice Neil Gorsuch would author the opinion for First Choice Women’s Resource Center v. Davenport, swiftly followed by Gorsuch’s concise outline of the ruling, which addresses the First Amendment rights of faith-based pregnancy centers in relation to New Jersey subpoenas for donor information.
Announcing a unanimous reversal, Gorsuch revealed the vote count early in his remarks. To my surprise, Alito later disclosed the opinion of the court regarding the Calais case. The ruling clarified that the Voting Rights Act does not obligate Louisiana to create additional majority-minority congressional districts, identifying no compelling interest that necessitates the use of race in redistricting.
Alito acknowledged the case’s “complicated history,” stating his intent to keep details to a minimum. However, he diverged from this plan, delivering a comprehensive twelve-minute explanation of the ruling and its implications. His lengthy summary included responses to anticipated objections, a clear indication that discord would follow. Justice Elena Kagan wasted no time, launching the first vocal opposition of the term.
Kagan criticized the decision, asserting it dismantles key elements of the Voting Rights Act. She emphasized the historical importance of the legislation, describing it as a critical exercise of federal authority, birthed from the struggles of civil rights activists. Her pointed remarks extended over fourteen minutes and underscored concerns about the ruling’s potential impact on African Americans in political office today.
In her dissent, Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, articulated their objections, emphasizing Congress’s original intent and the judicial duty to uphold it. Following her remarks, the presiding judge invited several individual lawyers to speak before the TPS case was filed, which examines the legality of the Trump administration’s decision to revoke Temporary Protected Status from Haitian and Syrian nationals.
Tension filled the courtroom as Attorney General D. John Sauer defended the controversial TPS decisions made by the former administration. Sotomayor’s pointed questions led to attempts by the presiding judge to regain control of the proceedings. Her inquiries delved into potential discriminatory motives surrounding the decision, especially within the context of President Trump’s past remarks.
In an uncomfortable moment, Sauer attempted to discredit comments made by both Trump and Noem, asserting that none of the quoted statements addressed race directly. Following the conclusion of regular arguments, he experienced a brief bout of dizziness but quickly reasserted himself for continued discussions, which promised to grow even more controversial.
As deliberations continued, Jeffrey Pipoli, representing Haitian TPS holders, planned to cite Trump’s derogatory remarks from the past, heightening the stakes of the debate. Alito interjected during discussions on the racial implications of TPS restrictions, questioning whether it is accurate to label these countries as predominantly non-white. This dialogue momentarily lightened the mood in court, but discussions soon shifted back to more substantive legal issues.
The morning arguments commenced at 10:35 a.m., culminating in a lengthy opinion issued shortly after noon. The second case, a patent dispute between Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. and Amarin Pharma Inc., began just over an hour later and continued the day’s rigorous agenda.
