Samuel Alito

The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to end Temporary Protected Status for Haitian and Syrian citizens, ruling that officials did not racially discriminate against Haitians. The majority dismissed claims that derogatory remarks by President Trump and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem constituted racial animus, while dissenting justices argued the decision ignored clear evidence of racism.

The Supreme Court ruled on two Second Amendment cases this term: United States v. Hemani and Wolford v. Lopez. In Hemani, the court unanimously rejected a federal law disarming daily marijuana users, while in Wolford v. Lopez, a 6-3 decision struck down a Hawaii law restricting firearms on private public property. Both rulings applied the Bruen framework, requiring governments to prove regulations align with historical firearm traditions.

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 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.

Small businesses and a Vernon Hills toymaker have sued the Trump administration over new tariffs on 60 trade partners, alleging arbitrary enforcement under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. The lawsuits follow a prior Supreme Court ruling against similar tariffs. Justice Samuel Alito recused himself 23 times during the 2025-26 term, citing direct stock holdings.

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's 2021 Bruen decision requires modern gun laws to align with historical firearm regulation traditions to pass Second Amendment scrutiny. In Wolford v. Lopez, the Court struck down Hawaii's law requiring permission to carry guns on private public-access property, rejecting a Louisiana Black Code law as an analog due to its racist origins.

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.

Texas officials are taking action against 'illegal birth tourism.' Gov. Greg Abbott and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito attended a ceremonial swearing-in event for Texas Supreme Court Justices.

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 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.

Justice Samuel Alito has become a consistent conservative vote on the court for two decades. The article highlights his alignment with President Trump’s policies as a defining moment.

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.

The Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment in Trump v. Barbara, a decision criticized as one of the court's worst. The ruling mandates citizenship for anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of parents' immigration status or intentions, sparking concerns about national security and the definition of American identity.

NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg retracted a false report claiming Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was retiring. The article highlights her past controversies, including plagiarism at National Observer in 1972 and ethics disputes over uncredited reporting on Supreme Court nominations.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito dissented in Trump v. Barbara, arguing the Court's 6-3 ruling upholding birthright citizenship for most U.S.-born children creates national security risks by granting citizenship to children of illegal aliens, temporary visitors, and 'birth tourists.' Alito claimed the majority misinterpreted the 14th Amendment and warned of potential exploitation by foreign nationals, citing hypothetical scenarios involving hostile individuals gaining citizenship. Michael Hough of NumbersUSA supported Alito's view, referencing Chinese birth tourism cases.

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.

NPR journalist Nina Totenberg discussed the events leading to a retracted story about Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito retiring. The outlet issued an editor’s note retracting the report, stating it had published a story about Alito retiring but later corrected it.

NPR retracted a false report claiming Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was retiring after a misheard announcement by legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg. Totenberg apologized for the error, and sources confirmed Alito is not retiring this term.

NPR retracted an article mistakenly reporting Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's retirement due to a misunderstanding of Chief Justice John Roberts' statement. The error by reporter Nina Totenberg led to an apology and explanation, with the story being retracted after being posted live briefly.

NPR retracted an article falsely reporting Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's retirement, attributed to a misunderstanding of Chief Justice John Roberts' statement by reporter Nina Totenberg. The error was quickly corrected, with apologies from NPR's leadership and an explanation from its public editor.

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.

NPR erroneously published a report claiming Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito had retired, later retracted it after the Court denied the claim. The error stemmed from reporter Nina Totenberg mishearing a statement and using a prewritten story, which included a typo. The mistake caused widespread retraction efforts and amplified media chaos during a busy ruling day.

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.

NPR retracted an article falsely reporting that Justice Samuel Alito was retiring, attributing the error to a misunderstanding. The report by Nina Totenberg was quickly removed after the Supreme Court's public information office denied the claim, and NPR issued an apology for the confusion.

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 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.