Samuel Alito

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.

The Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump’s executive order aiming to end birthright citizenship, ruling it incompatible with the 14th Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized that children born to parents unlawfully or temporarily present in the U.S. satisfy the Citizenship Clause. Justice Samuel Alito dissented, arguing the 14th Amendment only grants citizenship to children whose allegiance is solely to the U.S.

The Supreme Court eliminated limits on political party spending in federal elections, reversing a 50-year-old law. A Republican-led lawsuit, including Vice President JD Vance, challenged these limits, which were previously upheld in 2001. The decision aligns with the 2010 Citizens United ruling and shifts campaign finance rules, allowing parties to spend freely in coordination with candidates.

The Supreme Court eliminated federal limits on political party spending in coordination with candidates, following a Republican-led lawsuit including JD Vance. The decision overturns a 50-year-old law, aligning with the 2010 Citizens United ruling, and was supported by the Federal Election Commission under President Donald Trump's administration.

The Supreme Court eliminated limits on coordinated political party spending in federal elections, overturning a 50-year-old law. The decision, driven by a Republican-led lawsuit including Vice President JD Vance, expands spending rights previously limited to prevent circumvention of individual contribution caps.

The Supreme Court eliminated limits on political party spending in federal elections, overturning a 50-year-old law. A Republican-led lawsuit, including Vice President JD Vance, challenged these restrictions, which previously prevented large donors from bypassing contribution caps by funneling funds to parties. The decision aligns with the court's 2010 Citizens United ruling but reverses a 2001 precedent that upheld the spending limits.

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.

The Supreme Court upheld a Mississippi law allowing mail-in ballots postmarked on Election Day to be counted up to five days after, rejecting the Republican National Committee's challenge. In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled federal law does not require votes to be received by Election Day, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett writing the majority opinion. The ruling impacts 30 states and Washington, D.C., ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Mississippi's law allowing mail-in ballots to be counted up to five days after election day if postmarked by election day. The 5-4 ruling permits similar laws in 14 states and the District of Columbia. The Republican National Committee and President Trump opposed the measure, while voting rights groups supported it.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor received $4,333 in concert tickets for a Puerto Rico event last August, while other justices disclosed royalties from books and teaching income. Financial disclosure forms revealed Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson earned $1.81 million in book advances and Justice Amy Coney Barrett reported over $849,000 in royalties.

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.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that states can count mail-in ballots arriving after Election Day, rejecting arguments from the Trump administration and Republican states. The decision, in RNC vs. Watson, upheld Mississippi's law allowing ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if received within five business days, with thirteen states having similar grace periods.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement requires warrants to access cellphone location history data under the Fourth Amendment, citing privacy rights. The 6-3 decision centered on a Virginia bank robbery case, with Justice Elena Kagan writing the majority opinion. The ruling left unresolved questions about the reasonableness of geofence warrants, which allow police to track phones in specific geographic areas.

Supreme Court justices disclosed over $2 million in 2025 book deal earnings, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson receiving a $1.2 million advance. Gifts included concert tickets and a painting commission, while advocates criticized the ethical implications of justices earning millions from books.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor attended a Puerto Rico concert gifted by Rimas Entertainment, while justices reported book royalties, teaching income, and travel. Financial disclosures revealed earnings from books, speaking engagements, and courses, with Justice Samuel Alito requesting an extension for his report.