As expected, the nominee is Judge Amy Coney Barrett. More than any nomination in history, this is a celebration of conservative feminists. It comes close to the day of the confirmation of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. thehill.com/opinion/judici…
...While they reached very different conclusions on constitutional interpretations, Justice Ginsburg and Judge Barrett have striking similarities. Both graduated at the top of their law school classes. Both went into teaching at leading law schools. Both joined the bench ...
...with deeply rooted views of the law and its role in society. Both also publicly discussed the importance of their faith to their careers and their convictions.
Barrett's nomination is an important moment in another respect. I have long criticized the near monopoly held by Harvard, Yale, and Columbia in modern nominations. A graduate of Notre Dame, Barrett brings a long needed educational diversity to the court. jonathanturley.org/2010/05/12/sup…
This will likely prove the single most consequential and transformative nomination in the modern history of the Supreme Court. A long line of cases dangle on a 5-4 majority. The common denominator in those cases was Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
..The hyperbole is now approaching hysteria. Speaker Pelosi has declared that a vote for this nominee is a vote to kill the ACA. That is simply untrue. The ACA turns on severability, an issue that cuts across ideological lines. Kavanaugh just issued a pro-severance decision...
...The individual mandate (which was eliminated years ago) is most likely to be severed from the rest of the ACA. Indeed, it is not clear that Barrett would take an opposing view on severability. The most likely count, even without Ginsburg's vote, would be to preserve . . .
... the rest of the ACA. Yet, Democratic leaders are declaring the imminent death of the ACA and Hillary Clinton is bizarrely claiming a "diabolical" anti-ACA plot behind this nomination. Many web sites seem like a communal primal scream session disconnected to the actual case.
Sen. Hirono just refused to say whether Barrett is "qualified." She stated that she will vote on how Barrett is expected to vote. However, she said that she will refuse to meet with her.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Early on, John Sauer faced a gulp moment when the Chief Justice referred to his examples of different classes to show the narrower meaning are "quirky." Sauer is doing, as usual, an excellent job...
... Another worrisome moment is when Gorsuch said, "I am not sure how much you want to rely on Wong Kim Ark." The Administration, and others, insist that the Court expressly noted in that decision that the parents were "resident aliens."...
...Gorsuch is clearly in play. He is expressing unease with the lines drawn by the Administration in his questioning. ..
The Supreme Court may have put a dent in announced plans of Democratic politicians to arrest ICE officers and unleash sweeping prosecutions once they retake power. The Court just reversed the Second Circuit, holding that a Vermont officer had immunity in a protester's injury...
...In Zorn v. Linton, the Court voted 6-3 that officers are generally shielded from civil liability unless prior case law put the unlawfulness of an action "beyond debate." While a civil case, the Court has shown the same deference in criminal cases...
...The expectation is that civil and criminal cases will be filed against ICE and other federal law enforcement officers. Indeed, some politicians have insisted on barring masks to facilitate such lawsuits or prosecutions.
For a No Kings guy, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey sure seems to have a royal problem. Frey claimed on MS NOW that President Donald Trump could simply hire more TSA agents rather than deploy ICE officers. Yet, that would be done without congressional approval and appropriations...
...The MS NOW host did not correct the disinformation. It is telling that Democrats are opposing the effort to relieve the congestion at airports. Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-VA) appeared to welcome the chaos and "pain" caused to citizens at the airports as leverage for a deal...
...Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries went as far as to predict that ICE officers may "brutalize or in some instances, kill" people at airports...
NY Gov. Kathy Hochul is asking "high net worth" taxpayers to "go down to Palm Beach and see who you can bring back home" "to support the generous social programs we have in our state." There is another novel approach: change your policies to make people want to come back...
...The reason they are done in Florida is that the state has maintained low taxes as well as high-performing schools and services. Rather than put your hopes on peer pressure, try good policies and see what happens...
...New York Democrats are only the latest example of reaching the point where "you run out of other people's money." Yet, in New York, socialist Mayor Zohran Mamdani is demanding tax hikes and a $30 minimum wage. jonathanturley.org/2026/02/19/mam…
Judge James Boasberg has another controversial decision in throwing out a duly issued grand jury subpoena of Fed Chair Jerome Powell. Boasberg declared that “There is abundant evidence that the subpoenas’ dominant (if not sole) purpose is to harass and pressure Powell."...
...I have been skeptical of the basis and motivation of the criminal investigation into Powell. However, Boasberg could face serious appellate questions over his basis to toss out a valid subpoena based entirely on his view of the underlying criminal investigation...
...This is not something that courts can take judicial notice over the lack of criminal conduct. The subpoena is part of an investigation into such conduct. This is a very rare such order at this stage in an investigation and could raise difficult appellate issues.
The Judicial Conference has released a new policy that could materially alter the character of the federal courts, allowing judges to comment on what they deem “illegitimate forms of criticism and attacks.” It is not just injudicious, it is dangerous... jonathanturley.org/2026/02/18/rul…
...The added freedom afforded to judges to engage in commentary will do little to change the debate. It may, however, greatly erode the trust in what was once considered “our least dangerous branch.”
...Given increasingly injudicious comments, one would think that Chief Justice John Roberts and the Judicial Conference would seek to tighten, not loosen, the limits on judicial commentary. I am not suggesting that these past statements would be viewed as acceptable under the new rules. However, I fail to understand, in light of such controversial statements, the Conference elected to relax the rules at this time.