Brett Kavanaugh
Coverage of Brett Kavanaugh in the Nexus archive.
- She Voted for a Justice Who Overturned Roe. Now it Haunts Her on the Trail.
Senator Susan Collins endorsed Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination, which is now a significant issue in her re-election campaign. The decision to support Kavanaugh, who played a role in overturning Roe v. Wade, has become a point of contention.
- Justice Kavanaugh: the great concurrer of the Roberts court?
The article examines Justice Brett Kavanaugh's role as a prominent concurrence writer on the Roberts Court, highlighting his frequent alignment with majorities (92-95% of decisions) and his use of concurrences to respect dissenting arguments, explain court opinions, and outline future legal views. Kavanaugh's approach is contrasted with historical justices like William Brennan and John Harlan, with a specific example from the Trump v. Barbara birthright citizenship case illustrating his balancing of statutory and constitutional interpretations.
- Washington says goodbye to South Carolina US Sen. Lindsey Graham
Congress paid tribute to Sen. Lindsey Graham at the U.S. Capitol Rotunda, with attendees including political figures and international leaders. The event highlighted his support for Israel and Ukraine, and speeches emphasized his conservative values and legislative impact.
- Deadline passes for Trump to ask Supreme Court to reconsider birthright citizenship ruling
The deadline for the Trump administration to request the Supreme Court to reconsider its rejection of birthright citizenship restrictions expired without a new filing. The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in June struck down Trump’s executive order denying automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents in the country illegally or temporarily. A rehearing petition faces long odds as the court has not agreed to rehear an argued case in over 50 years.
- Deadline passes for Trump to ask Supreme Court to reconsider birthright citizenship ruling
The deadline passed for the Trump administration to request the Supreme Court rehear its birthright citizenship case, with no new filing submitted. The Court’s 6-3 decision in June rejected Trump’s executive order restricting automatic citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants, though three justices would have upheld the restrictions. A rehearing petition faces extremely low odds, as the Court has not granted one in over 50 years.
- Washington says goodbye to South Carolina US Sen. Lindsey Graham
Members of Congress and international leaders attended a tribute for Sen. Lindsey Graham at the U.S. Capitol Rotunda on July 28, 2026, followed by a funeral service at Washington National Cathedral. Graham, a supporter of Israel and Ukraine, was remembered for his conservative values, advocacy for Ukraine, and role in the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Vice President JD Vance and Senate leaders highlighted his bipartisan efforts and dedication to his constituents.
- The Latest: Trump eulogizes Lindsey Graham, says he was a 'constant fixture of American politics'
Trump eulogized Sen. Lindsey Graham at a memorial service in Washington, highlighting his political influence and defense of Brett Kavanaugh during confirmation hearings. The U.S. Air Force initiated a process to rename Joint Base Charleston after Graham. Trump also met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to discuss regional agreements and bilateral relations.
- Trump administration appears not to have asked Supreme Court to rehear birthright citizenship case
The Trump administration did not request the Supreme Court to rehear the case challenging its executive order ending birthright citizenship, as the deadline for filing a petition passed without submission. The Supreme Court previously ruled the order unconstitutional, citing the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, with a 6-3 decision upholding a lower court's ruling against the policy.
- Justices’ lucrative book deals deserve more scrutiny
Supreme Court justices have earned over $13 million collectively from book deals, raising ethical concerns due to limited scrutiny compared to other income sources like gifts or travel. Ethics rules permit writing income as part of outside earnings, but critics argue book revenue deserves greater oversight.
- How predictable is the Supreme Court from oral argument?
The article examines how predictable Supreme Court decisions are based on oral arguments, analyzing 56 cases from October 2025 to April 2026. It uses examples like Louisiana v. Callais, Trump v. Barbara, and Chatrie v. United States to show varying degrees of predictability, concluding that while oral arguments provide meaningful insights, they are not fully reliable predictors of outcomes.
- Brett Kavanaugh has become Trump’s chief enabler on the supreme court | Sidney Blumenthal
Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court opinions have enabled Trump to bypass judicial challenges to his agenda through pragmatic justifications rather than strict legal doctrines. His rulings have contributed to societal unrest, global threats via tariffs, and congressional chaos over birthright citizenship, positioning him as the key enabler of Trump's political strategies.
- In birthright citizenship dissent, Justice Thomas stakes out an ideological claim of who counts as an American
The Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship in Trump v. Barbara, rejecting President Trump’s executive order to narrow it. Justices Thomas and Gorsuch dissented, arguing the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause should focus on domicile and jurisdiction, framing the issue as an ideological debate about who qualifies as 'American.' Thomas criticized the majority’s interpretation as inconsistent with constitutional text and history.
- JOHN YOO: Barrett and Kagan’s safety plea exposes the left’s war on the Supreme Court
Supreme Court justices requested $14.6 million for enhanced security due to a 38% rise in threats, including a swatting attack on Justice Amy Coney Barrett and an assassination attempt on Justice Brett Kavanaugh linked to the Dobbs decision. Democratic leaders like Chuck Schumer and Sheldon Whitehouse have criticized the court and advocated for expanding it, with Kamala Harris suggesting adding liberal justices to counter conservative rulings.
- Justices ask Congress for more security funding as Barrett reveals she wore a bulletproof vest: ‘Performing this service… put me in this position’
Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan testified before Congress to request increased security funding due to rising threats against justices. Barrett disclosed she wore a bulletproof vest after facing threats, while the court seeks $228 million for next fiscal year, including $14.6 million for expanded personal protection. The U.S. Marshals Service reported 564 threats in the past fiscal year, with incidents like fake swatting calls and bomb threats targeting justices.
- Justices make rare personal plea to Congress for more security funding
Two Supreme Court justices, Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett, testified before Congress to request increased security funding for the court, citing a rise in threats against justices and their families. Barrett described a swatting attack at her home and the need for a bulletproof vest after the leak of a controversial court decision. The court requested a $228 million budget for 2027, including $18 million for security programs.
- Two cheers – but not three – for Roberts and Barrett
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett were part of a five-justice majority in two key Supreme Court cases, Trump v. Barbara and Watson v. Republican National Committee, upholding birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment and allowing states to count mailed ballots postmarked by Election Day. Their decisions were praised for judicial integrity, aligning with the law's objective requirements despite dissenting opinions from four other justices.
- Supreme Court justices to testify before Congress on increasing security funding in rare appearance
Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett will testify before a House appropriations panel to request increased security funding due to rising threats against the judiciary. The court seeks $228 million for next fiscal year, including $15 million for expanded personal protection for justices and $2 million for an off-site residential security post.
- Supreme Court justices to testify before Congress on increasing security funding in rare appearance
Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett will testify before a House appropriations panel to request increased security funding amid rising threats to the judiciary. The Court seeks $228 million for next fiscal year, including $15 million for expanded personal protection for justices and $2 million for improved emergency response infrastructure.
- Trump accepts Jake Tapper interview invite, tells anchor he's trying to move CNN onto a ‘normal path’
President Trump accepted an invitation from Jake Tapper for a broader interview on CNN's 'State of the Union' after a phone call discussing the death of Sen. Lindsey Graham. Trump avoided questions about recent U.S. military action in Iran and the Strait of Hormuz, praising Graham's defense of Brett Kavanaugh as his 'finest moment.'
- Donald Trump calls late Sen Lindsey Graham's Kavanaugh defense his 'finest moment'
President Donald Trump praised the late Sen. Lindsey Graham's defense of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his 2018 confirmation hearing as Graham's 'finest moment.' Trump highlighted Graham's criticism of Democrats for their treatment of Kavanaugh and credited his intervention with shifting the confirmation process. The Senate confirmed Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court in a 50-48 vote.
- High court mysteries
The Supreme Court's visibility through books and public statements contrasts with its opaque practices. Major decisions often emerge at the term's end, possibly due to complexity or tradition, while 'relisted' cases are reconsidered repeatedly, tracked by Relist Watch. The court's customs, like Justice Brennan's ferry schedule influencing term dates, remain enigmatic.
- Who is the Supreme Court’s most “ideological” justice? And does that question even make sense?
The article examines the complexity of labeling Supreme Court justices as 'ideological,' noting that judicial decisions often defy simple liberal-conservative divisions. It highlights cases like Trump v. Barbara and Chatrie v. United States, where majority coalitions included justices from different perceived ideological blocs, and discusses challenges in measuring ideology through emergency dockets.
- The US supreme court’s ruling on trans people in sports is an assault on bodily autonomy | Judith Levine
The US Supreme Court ruled that states can restrict participation in girls’ and women’s sports to 'biological females,' upholding West Virginia and Idaho laws. Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s majority opinion defended the laws under Title IX and the 14th Amendment, while citing Donald Trump’s executive order opposing male participation in women’s sports.
- MORNING GLORY: The Supreme Court officially closes the books on another term
The Supreme Court concludes its term, with increased ideological division in decisions noted by SCOTUSblog. The article highlights the gradual pace of constitutional law changes and the media's focus on the Court's impact on American citizens.
- The justices remained busy last summer. This year, will they actually get a break?
The Supreme Court justices handled significant emergency docket cases during last summer's recess, addressing requests from the Trump administration to reduce the federal workforce, terminate grants, and alter immigration enforcement. This activity led to tensions among justices, including public criticism from Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, raising concerns about long-term effects on court dynamics.
- 250 and the court
The Supreme Court declined to halt an $800-a-day fine against former Fox News reporter Catherine Herridge for refusing to reveal her source in a lawsuit involving scientist Yanping Chen. The Court also ruled that President Donald Trump cannot fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook while her challenge to her removal is ongoing, but he may attempt to fire her again under new circumstances.
- Justice Barrett faces conservative ire, sexist attacks after birthright citizenship ruling
Justice Amy Coney Barrett faces backlash from conservative lawmakers and pundits after voting to uphold birthright citizenship, which undermines President Trump’s immigration agenda. She joined Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and the court’s liberal justices in striking down Trump’s executive order.
- How SCOTUS striking limits on party spending could impact key midterm races
The U.S. Supreme Court overturned a 50-year-old federal law limiting political party spending in coordination with candidates, expanding First Amendment protections for money in politics. The 6-3 decision benefits Republican candidates by enabling unlimited spending and coordination, potentially increasing TV ad spending in key midterm races like Maine’s Senate election.
- The Supreme Court Rules That Sports Are Different
The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in West Virginia v. B. P. J. that states can define men’s and women’s sports by biological sex, not gender identity, preserving sex-segregated competitions. The decision aligns with Title IX’s protection of single-sex teams and reflects public opinion favoring sex-based segregation in sports. Dissenting justices and groups like the ACLU criticized the ruling as harmful to trans athletes.
- The 2025-26 term by the numbers
The 2025-26 Supreme Court term showed increased ideological division, with 28.8% of decisions split 6-3 along ideological lines, compared to 15.2% the previous term. The final week included deviations from the usual 6-3 pattern, including Trump v. Barbara, where all three liberal justices joined the majority. Other cases like West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Trump v. Slaughter followed predictable ideological splits.
- Closing out the term
The Supreme Court released three final opinions for the 2025-26 term, including striking down an executive order on birthright citizenship in Trump v. Barbara, upholding Title IX policies on sports teams in West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox, and ruling against campaign spending restrictions in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC. The decisions involved multiple justices with varying concurrences and dissents.
- The Most Surprising Part of the Birthright-Citizenship Decision
The Supreme Court struck down an executive order ending birthright citizenship for children of noncitizens, with a vote closer than expected (6-3 or 5-4). The decision highlighted Justice Brett Kavanaugh's unexpected alignment with liberal justices on the issue, despite his conservative leanings in other aspects of the case.
- Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship, blocking Trump's executive order in 6-3 ruling
The Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship in a 6-3 ruling, blocking an executive order from President Donald Trump that sought to deny citizenship to children born to parents in the U.S. illegally or on temporary visas. The decision affirmed the 14th Amendment's guarantee of citizenship to nearly all U.S.-born children, with dissenting justices including Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch.
- Supreme Court strikes down political party spending limits
The Supreme Court struck down federal limits on coordinated political party spending in a 6-3 decision, ruling they violate the First Amendment. The ruling, written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, removes caps on party expenditures supporting candidates, with critics warning it could increase corruption and supporters calling it a victory for free speech.
- Supreme Court strikes down political party spending limits
The Supreme Court struck down federal campaign finance limits on political parties, ruling they violate the First Amendment. The 6-3 decision removed coordinated spending caps between candidates and parties, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasizing the restrictions as disproportionate. The ruling aligns with Republican leaders' arguments against federal spending limits but faces criticism for potentially increasing corruption risks.
- US Supreme Court upholds transgender athlete bans in Idaho, West Virginia
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld state laws in Idaho and West Virginia that ban transgender athletes from participating in women’s and girls’ sports teams, ruling 6-3 that the bans do not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment or Title IX. The decision marks a setback for transgender rights, with dissenting justices arguing for further factual review.
- Supreme Court Rejects Trump’s Attempt to End Birthright Citizenship
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that President Donald J. Trump exceeded his authority by attempting to end birthright citizenship via executive order, upholding the 14th Amendment. The majority opinion, led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, emphasized the constitutional right to citizenship, while dissenting justices argued the ruling expanded citizenship to include children of 'birth tourists.' Immigrant advocates highlighted the decision's importance for protecting children's rights and access to healthcare.
- Court grants several new cases, including on whether the Second Amendment protects possession of semiautomatic rifles
The Supreme Court has agreed to review the constitutionality of bans on semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15, taking up cases from Illinois and Connecticut. The decision follows recent rulings on gun rights and includes challenges to local laws that prohibit possession of such firearms, with justices acknowledging prior divisions on the issue.
- US Supreme Court upholds transgender athlete bans in Idaho, West Virginia
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld state laws in Idaho and West Virginia that ban transgender athletes from participating on women’s and girls’ sports teams. The 6-3 decision ruled the bans do not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment or Title IX. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, argued the policies were 'reasonable,' while dissenting justices, including Sonia Sotomayor, criticized the lack of factual review.
- Justices strike down campaign finance law
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to strike down federal limits on coordinated spending by political parties with candidates, citing First Amendment violations. The decision in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission overturned the 2001 Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee ruling. Justices Kavanaugh (majority) and Kagan (dissent) highlighted opposing views on free speech and democratic integrity.