Clarence Thomas

The deadline passed for the Trump administration to request the Supreme Court to reconsider its June 2026 ruling rejecting birthright citizenship restrictions. The 6-3 decision struck down an executive order that would have denied citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents in the country illegally or temporarily. Three justices would have upheld the restrictions, but no new filing was submitted within the 25-day window.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'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.

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.

The article highlights unexpected rulings in the Supreme Court's recent term, including a 5-4 decision in a birthright citizenship case and a 9-0 ruling on a West Virginia law excluding transgender athletes from sports. Justice Clarence Thomas's concurring opinion argued that the federal government is not bound by the Equal Protection Clause, challenging longstanding legal precedents.

Justice Samuel Alito has aligned with President Donald Trump's positions in 89% of 100 cases over the past decade, more than any other justice. Justice Clarence Thomas similarly supports Trump but through originalist principles, while Chief Justice John Roberts authored key decisions against Trump, including rulings on tariffs, birthright citizenship, and the firing of a Federal Reserve official.

The article discusses refiled emergency applications to the U.S. Supreme Court, noting that 19% of the emergency docket consists of such applications. Despite being refiled with different justices after initial denial, none of the 408 refiled cases from 2000 to 2024 were granted. Justice Sonia Sotomayor receives the most refiles, raising questions about procedural choices.

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 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 Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship, rejecting President Donald Trump's executive order to end it. Lawmakers split along party lines, with Republicans criticizing the ruling and some Democrats supporting it. The 6-3 decision included dissents from Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito, who argued the 14th Amendment does not apply to children of unlawful immigrants.

Ketanji Brown Jackson invoked the 'dark stain of slavery' in a sharp rebuke of Clarence Thomas during a Supreme Court session. The exchange highlighted tensions between the justices.

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.

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.

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized Justice Clarence Thomas for his dissent in a decision upholding birthright citizenship. Jackson argued Thomas applied a 'narrow vision' of the 14th Amendment and questioned his 'colorblind' Constitution stance.

Norman Wong, great-grandson of Wong Kim Ark, praised the Supreme Court's 6-3 decision upholding birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment, rejecting President Donald Trump's executive order restricting citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants. The ruling reaffirmed the 1898 precedent established by Wong Kim Ark's case, which secured U.S. citizenship for those born domestically regardless of parental status.

The great-grandson of Wong Kim Ark, Norman Wong, praised the Supreme Court's 6-3 decision upholding birthright citizenship, rejecting President Trump's executive order. The ruling reaffirmed the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of citizenship for anyone born in the U.S., with Chief Justice John Roberts leading the majority. Trump criticized the decision, while dissenting justices argued the amendment was misinterpreted.

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.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that children born in the U.S. are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment regardless of their parents' immigration status. The decision rejected President Donald Trump's executive order denying citizenship to children of undocumented or temporary residents, highlighting divisions among justices, including contrasting views between Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Clarence Thomas.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that children born in the U.S. are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment regardless of their parents' immigration status, rejecting an executive order by President Donald Trump. The decision highlighted divisions among justices, including differing views between two Black justices and sharp disagreements over historical interpretations of the Citizenship Clause.

The Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s executive order banning birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants and some temporary visitors, ruling it unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. The 6-3 decision reaffirmed that the 14th Amendment automatically grants citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., with Chief Justice John Roberts emphasizing the Framers’ intent. Three conservative justices and President Trump disputed the ruling, arguing the Amendment was intended only for freed black slaves.

The Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s Executive Order banning birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants and temporary visitors, ruling it unconstitutional. The 6-3 decision reaffirmed that birthright citizenship is enshrined in the 14th Amendment, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the majority opinion. Three conservative justices dissented, arguing the 14th Amendment only applied to freed black slaves.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that President Trump’s Executive Order banning birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants and some temporary visitors was unconstitutional, reaffirming that birthright citizenship is protected by the 14th Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, while Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil M. Gorsuch, and Samuel Alito dissented, arguing the 14th Amendment applied only to freed black slaves.

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.

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.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship, rejecting President Donald Trump’s executive order that sought to redefine the constitutional right. A majority of justices, led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, ruled the order violated the 14th Amendment. Six justices agreed with the majority, while three dissented, with some arguing Congress could legislate exceptions to birthright citizenship.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship, rejecting President Donald Trump’s executive order that sought to redefine the constitutional right. A majority of justices, led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, ruled the order violated the 14th Amendment, while conservative justices dissented. Trump urged Congress to codify his policy, but the decision emphasized that any change to birthright citizenship would require a constitutional amendment.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship, rejecting President Donald Trump’s executive order that aimed to redefine the constitutional right. A majority of justices found the order violated the 14th Amendment, while three conservative justices dissented. Trump attended the oral arguments, and the decision marks a setback for his immigration agenda.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to Cook County’s assault weapons ban, which prohibits possession of firearms like AR-15s. The case, consolidated with a similar challenge from Connecticut, will determine whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to own such rifles. The decision follows the 2022 Bruen ruling, which established a framework for evaluating gun laws based on historical tradition of firearm regulation.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship, rejecting President Donald Trump’s executive order to redefine constitutional rights. A majority of justices, led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., ruled the order violated the 14th Amendment, while three conservative justices dissented. Trump called on Congress to codify his proposal into law.

The Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship, rejecting President Donald Trump’s executive order that sought to exclude children of undocumented immigrants and temporary visitors from citizenship. The ruling relied on the 14th Amendment and recent federal laws, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the majority opinion. Three conservative justices, including Clarence Thomas, dissented, arguing the order should be allowed to take effect.

The Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s birthright citizenship restrictions, ruling the policy unconstitutional. The majority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, included three liberal justices and conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, while Justice Clarence Thomas dissented.

The Supreme Court announced its final four cases for the term, including Trump v. Barbara (birthright citizenship) and cases on transgender athletes and campaign finance. On Monday, the court issued rulings in four cases, including decisions on the FTC’s for-cause removal provision, the removal of a Federal Reserve Governor, mail-in ballot deadlines, and cellphone location privacy. Additional cases were added to the 2026-27 term docket.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor received $4,333 in Bad Bunny concert tickets from Rimas Entertainment during a 2025 trip to Puerto Rico, while Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson received a $2,500 painting for her chambers. Financial disclosures revealed teaching earnings, book royalties, and travel details for multiple justices in 2025.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor received $4,333 in concert tickets from Rimas Entertainment, Bad Bunny's label, during a trip to Puerto Rico. Justices reported book royalties and teaching income, including $1.81 million for Ketanji Brown Jackson and $33,285 for Brett Kavanaugh. The disclosures highlight increased scrutiny of justices' financial activities and ethical practices.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that law enforcement requires warrants to access cellphone location history data under the Fourth Amendment. The decision centered on a 2019 Virginia credit union robbery case, where police obtained location data from a third-party tech company. The ruling leaves unresolved when such searches are deemed reasonable, with civil liberties advocates and states debating the implications of geofence warrants.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was seen on Capitol Hill as the court released opinions before its summer recess. He was accompanied by a Metropolitan Police Department officer and another man while walking through the House side of the Capitol, where he spoke to MS NOW’s Mychael.