July 1, 2026

"The justices did find unanimity 45 percent of the time, up two points from last term. They joined together, for instance..."

"... to say a Texas man could not be prosecuted for violating a law banning drug users from gun possession merely because he frequently used marijuana, and they agreed that a New Jersey anti-abortion group could bring a challenge in federal court to government efforts to seek its donor list. There were also examples of ideologically diverse lineups during the term. In a 5-to-4 vote on Monday, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court’s three liberals in supporting Mississippi’s grace period for late-arriving mail-in ballots, rejecting a push by the Trump administration to invalidate a state law. Justice Barrett also joined Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion this week to uphold birthright citizenship on constitutional grounds. Mr. Trump appointed Justice Barrett to the court in his first term, and her tendency to occasionally rule against his priorities has drawn harsh criticism from the president’s allies. Justice Gorsuch, who has a libertarian streak, also aligned at times with his colleagues on the left, more often than he has in the past.... But even so, a conservative bloc routinely controlled the outcome in cases large and small, with the center of the bench shifting considerably to the right...."

From "Despite Some Losses for Trump, Supreme Court Delivers Enduring Conservative Wins/The justices pushed back on some of President Trump’s signature moves, but they also expanded presidential power and supplied victories on long-sought conservative goals" (NYT).

52 comments:

Nancy said...

But the 3 liberal justices never broke lockstep.

bagoh20 said...

"Imagine if a pregnant lady breaks into your house and has a baby in your living room, and then says she now has a legal right to stay in your house and live there forever - that's how insane it is granting birthright citizenship to illegals." ~ Charlie Kirk.

And also has all the rights to the resources of your family as any other family member - Bagoh20

Bob Boyd said...

@ bagoh20

She didn't just break in, your wife and kids brought her home.

Enigma said...

@Nancy --

There are 2 liberals and one vegetable. See the 8-1 losses of KBJ and her 'often unique' commentary.

Spiros said...

On birthright citizenship -- the Democrats are taking an odd position here. They want adult migrants who work cheap and don't complain. From a purely fiscal perspective, migrant children are risky long-term investments. White women want cheap nannies and maids NOW! The billionaires want adults who are immediately productive and who drive down wages NOW. These people don't give a fig about the kids and they don't want to support them. So what gives? Are the Democrats playing the long game?

But anyways, the Supreme Court is still just one vote away from ending birthright citizenship. The Republicans will try again and next time they might succeed. But Trump (!) do it right this time. Congress should start with the children of temporary visitors and birth tourism. And then go from there...

Unknown said...

Did any of the "liberal" justice vote apart from the others? Were there any surprises from them?

Aggie said...

"...She didn't just break in, your wife and kids brought her home...."

Well, not quite - your crazy hippy neighbors invited them into your home and delivered them to your doorstep.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Alito’s dissent is the best argument against this interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Molly Hemingway recommends starting at page 153 to see his strongest points.

Spiros said...

One more thing about the open border racists. Adult migrants, especially from Latin America (much less so from Africa or the Middle East) are immediately productive. Latino migrants and Indian doctors, for example, are ready-made productive capital. They are good workers and they are not violent. I believe that this mass migration we're experiencing is an enormous international transfer of human capital from desperately poor countries to the United States. If we close the borders, we will be helping these poorer countries. Keep your doctors and engineers!

Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ said...

"Alito wrote in his dissent that the court’s interpretation of the law “preserves a powerful incentive” for people to enter or remain in the country illegally."

That is not a material consideration for a court to consider in the face of the clear words of the constitution.I can't think of a clearer case where unanimity should have been expected.

Too much emphasis on Trump here. These are rulings which impact all future Presidents and Republicans might not be so enthusiastic about enhanced Presidential powers in a few years time.

gilbar said...

"..There were also examples of ideologically diverse lineups during the term. In a 5-to-4 vote on Monday, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court’s three liberals.."

assumes facts not in evidence.
What you REALLY HAD, was the 5 lib judges ruling together

gilbar said...

so, according to the article (as least according to its headline) the 3 MOST Liberal judges agreed with the 3 conservatives 45% of the time.

So, HOW MANY TIMES did the 2 other liberal judges BREAK with their liberal cohorts, and vote with the 3 conservatives?

I'm betting that those two voted with their other three lefties as much OR MORE OFTEN than they did with the right

Kai Akker said...

"with the center of the bench shifting considerably to the right"

That would happen if the Democrats' trio took the left-most option in all decisions, would it not?

Duh. But consider the source.

Shouting Thomas said...

The huge win was Trump.v. Slaughter. End.of 90 years of rule by unelected experts in “independent executive agencies. Rejoice!

Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ said...

"[to say a Texas man could not be prosecuted for violating a law banning drug users from gun possession merely because he frequently used marijuana,]"

Well that's cool for casual drug users. But what about competitive drug users?

Originalists noted that small beer was a breakfast drink when the text was written.

Score one for originalism?

rehajm said...

“She didn't just break in, your wife and kids brought her home."

…and her Maybach…

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Any court that doesn’t agree with lunatic lefties 100% of the time must be packed or abolished!

rehajm said...

"That is not a material consideration for a court to consider in the face of the clear words of the constitution”

I agree with this. I wish we would all agree with this all the time, not only when there’s a spike the football moment for the liberals…

Peachy+2 said...

Justisss Jackson is ridiculous.
See for yourself.

Ann Althouse said...

"Imagine if a pregnant lady breaks into your house and has a baby in your living room, and then says she now has a legal right to stay in your house and live there forever - that's how insane it is granting birthright citizenship to illegals." ~ Charlie Kirk.

Imagine if a minuscule cell arrives in your womb and implants itself there, then says it now has a legal right to stay in your womb and live there until it swells your body enormously in preparation for a violent exit - that's how insane it is granting a right to life for the unborn. ~ Not Charlie Kirk.

rehajm said...

“Justisss Jackson is ridiculous”

…there’s a well known investment banker that claimed his golden retriever could be a good investment banker. I imagine Jason is the golden retriever of justices. Nobody has told me so but I suspect golden retrievers do not make good justices…

bagoh20 said...

I just want them to go home. I didn't say kill them.

bagoh20 said...

The lady's baby does not need to live in your house forever to survive. Except for rape, half the fetus was invited, and half of it always lived there .

tommyesq said...

"There were also examples of ideologically diverse lineups during the term. "

Always involving Justices from the right joining the 3-woman voting block on the left. There is never a case where one of those three joined the right, and only o few where two of the three did, meaning it was a 9-0 issue but Biden tossed an unqualified venal person onto the Court who must always dissent.

Earnest Prole said...

New York Times writer or an Althouse commenter, I think we can all agree it’s deeply wrong if not illegitimate when the Supreme Court rules in ways that differ from our own preferences.

RCOCEAN II said...

The constant was the 3 leftists voting a bloc together on almost every case. Never did 1 of the Leftist "go maverick" show some independent thought and give the Conservatives a 5-4 win.

This was the true when Ginsberg and Breyer were on the court. The Democrat justices vote the Leftwing party line -together - 95 percent of the time. Its only the Republicans that constantly split off and give the other side wins.

RCOCEAN II said...

The MSM never criticizes democrats or liberals for "voting in lock step" and never praises them for "Being independent". That's true of Politicians or judges. But those great Republican "Mavericks" are so brave and smart.

Wince said...

Isn't that "cell arrives" scenario essentially covered by the "rape and incest" exceptions?

Imagine if a minuscule cell arrives in your womb and implants itself there, then says it now has a legal right to stay in your womb and live there until it swells your body enormously in preparation for a violent exit - that's how insane it is granting a right to life for the unborn. ~ Not Charlie Kirk.

MadTownGuy said...

Ann Althouse said...

"Imagine if a minuscule cell arrives in your womb and implants itself there, then says it now has a legal right to stay in your womb and live there until it swells your body enormously in preparation for a violent exit - that's how insane it is granting a right to life for the unborn. ~ Not Charlie Kirk."

It doesn't just happen to implant itself there. It may be there by consent, or may have been sent there forcibly. I'm guessing you're using a simplistic argument to counter what you see as a simplistic argument, but I don't see any moral equivalent between the two hypotheticals.

Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ said...

I stopped teaching Constitutional Law 10 years ago because what's the point. ~ (not) Ann Althouse

gilbar said...

in Iowa, a woman can just walk to the nearest fire station, etc..
and put the kid on the conter.. and walk away.
can we do THAT with immigrants?

gilbar said...

https://hhs.iowa.gov/programs/CPS/safe-haven
"..The Safe Haven Act is a law that allows parents - or another person who has the parent's authorization - to leave an infant up to 90 days old at a hospital, health care facility, a fire station, through a newborn safety device, or to an Adoption Service Provider without fear of prosecution for abandonment..."

Iman said...

Nancy… and right outta the gate!

Tom T. said...

They were unanimous in overturning the injunctions against the bans on trans kids in girls' sports. The three Justices on the left just would have given the plaintiffs another shot in the lower court.

rcommal said...

[start virtual italics] tommyesq said...
"There were also examples of ideologically diverse lineups during the term. "

Always involving Justices from the right joining the 3-woman voting block on the left. There is never a case where one of those three joined the right, and only o few where two of the three did, meaning it was a 9-0 issue but Biden tossed an unqualified venal person onto the Court who must always dissent.

7/1/26, 8:52 AM [end virtual italics]

I don't think that this is actually true, specifically looking at Elena Kagan. My gut is that she's voted with the majority, including on conservative sides/issues, more than people think. I'm not saying that she's done so in the majority of case, just that I think it's more often than people think, and certainly more than once!

I absolutely could be wrong, so I've started an AI research on her "voting record," but so far it's very lengthy, and thus I hesitate to post it here as a matter of blog-commenter etiquette.

I would enjoy Althouse's take, if she's at all interested in that.

Regards,

Lori (reader_iam)

Peaceful warrior said...

It’s a fair point that the Sotomayor and Jackson might be very slightly more aligned than Thomas and Alito (~95% vs ~85%), but this ignores that in many cases everyone on the court agrees. Simple arithmetic in a 6-3 Republican-appointed court often just means the three Democratic appointees are stranded together. Sure, Roberts, Barrett, and sometimes Gorsuch prevented the most aggressive Trump arguments from prevailing, but the conservative majority still delivered major, lasting conservative legal victories.

Rabel said...

"Subject to the jurisdiction" had no clear definition. That's obvious from the way both the majority and the dissents struggled to find one.

Roberts had a blank slate on which to write his own version of the 14th. He chose to write it in a way which is detrimental to the interests of the country and it's citizens.

Rabel said...

You're confusing the sperm cell with the zygote.

Aggie said...

'...a minuscule cell arrives in your womb and implants itself there....'

Just like the 'truck crashed into the busy holiday marketplace' or 'the gun shot into the celebratory crowd' ?

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Trump’s “losses” have remedies and his wins are durable and to the left control of government devastating.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

**"Subject to the jurisdiction" had no clear definition. **

Not true. The Solicitor argued that the other time the phrase is used in the Constitution should inform its meaning.

Hassayamper said...

Glad to see the SC finally gave cert to a couple of cases challenging bans on scary-looking guns at the state level.

I assume we will see a 6-3 decision affirming that the ordinary citizen, including but not limited to the tens of millions of unorganized militiamen defined in 10 U.S.C. §311, has the right to own the same weapons as a common infantryman, which is the only reasonable interpretation of the Second Amendment.

After that, I want to see the Trump Justice Department start giving the big-city mayors and police chiefs and the likes of Michael Bloomberg the same treatment that rural Southern sheriffs got in the 1960's and 70's. They have long been engaged in a widespread conspiracy against our most important civil right, and it's time they were mercilessly and vigorously punished for it.

Hey Skipper said...

Imagine if a minuscule cell arrives in your womb and implants itself there, then says now that my life has started, there are only two ways it will end: natural cause, or homicide; I have a legal right to my life just like you do, Ann — that's how insane it is murder the unborn ~ Logic and Reason.

Big Mike said...

Helen Dugan, Amy Barrett, the evil dwarf Kagan, and the two DEI hires indicate why it is that biological women do not belong on the bench.

Steve said...

"The agreement data show both stability and a subtle shift. Last term, the highest overall agreement pair was Thomas and Alito at 97%, while Sotomayor and Jackson agreed 94% of the time overall and 95% in closely divided cases. Sotomayor and Jackson agreed in all closely divided cases, though their overall agreement rate was slightly lower, at 94%. This term produced a four-way tie for the highest overall agreement rate: Roberts-Kavanaugh, Thomas-Alito, Sotomayor-Kagan, and Sotomayor-Jackson all agreed 94% of the time. In closely divided cases, Sotomayor and Jackson were the only pair to agree 100% of the time."
https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/07/the-2025-26-term-by-the-numbers/

Earnest Prole said...

The fifth vote for birthright citizenship says Congress could reverse it, so going to work on that would appear to make more sense than whining about how this ruling is the end of the Republic.

Unless republics really aren’t your thing.

Michael Fitzgerald said...

Barrett is the work of Deep State rat Mike Pence and the other traitors who hoodwinked Trump in his first term.

Rustygrommet said...

Since we're going all constitutional.
If the BATF&E can no longer tax some AOWs do I still have to register my silencer? The Only reason the BATF&E exist is to tax. And by taxing reguate.
(AOW any other weapon)

mccullough said...

Give Trump props for challenging birthright citizenship.

It’s John Roberts problem now.

Trump’s job is to cut off visas to China and our other enemies. If a China woman on a visa gives birth here after 9 months from yesterday, then it’s the executive branch’s fault.

No student visas, no travel visas, no business visas.

And step up the deportation of pregnant illegals. Prevent future crime

mccullough said...

ACB is a Catholic. The dogma lives loudly within her. No abortion and no borders. That’s the Catholic way

Hassayamper said...

If the BATF&E can no longer tax some AOWs do I still have to register my silencer? The Only reason the BATF&E exist is to tax. And by taxing regulate.

Pretty sure there is at least one lawsuit making that very argument working its way up the food chain to the SC.

It's not only the AOW's that are no longer taxed, which include things like cane guns and other disguised weapons, as well as pistols with a vertical foregrip. The tax on silencers and on short-barreled rifles and shotguns was also removed. It remains in place for machine guns and destructive devices.

A silencer, despite the name, only suppresses the report from a firearm to tolerable levels, and does not make it practically silent like in a Hollywood movie. It's bizarre that it is regulated as strictly as a machine gun in the US, but can be bought over the counter in England and many other European countries.

Indefinitely Extended Excursion™️ said...

Supreme Court rules 6-3 that it can do whatever it wants.

Post a Comment

Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 4 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith. Also: No italics, even briefly. Use asterisks for emphasis. And don't play with the format by changing fonts or using boldface or all caps. Never include more than one extra line break between paragraphs.