Sonia Sotomayor

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 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.

The Supreme Court released two rulings—Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook—simultaneously to avoid uncertainty about the Federal Reserve’s independence, as the cases addressed limits on President Trump’s influence over federal agencies and the central bank. The Court expanded presidential authority over regulatory boards but protected the Fed’s independence, with Chief Justice Roberts emphasizing the need to avoid public doubt about the institution’s stability.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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 in a 6-3 decision. The ruling stated 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 that West Virginia’s law was 'reasonable' under Title IX, while dissenting justices, including Sonia Sotomayor, argued for further factual review on whether transgender and cisgender girls are 'similarly situated.'

The Supreme Court ruled that states can exclude transgender athletes from women’s and girls’ sports teams, upholding Idaho and West Virginia laws that do not violate federal civil rights laws. The decision, which was unanimous on the federal law aspect but divided on constitutional grounds, centers on two laws barring transgender women and girls from participating in public school and college sports teams.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that states can restrict transgender athletes from participating in school sports teams aligned with their gender identity, upholding laws in 29 states. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, argued Title IX’s reference to 'sex' in sports participation pertains to biological sex, while dissenting Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the decision for its impact on transgender rights and opportunities.

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 U.S. Supreme Court upheld bans in Idaho and West Virginia prohibiting transgender athletes from participating in public school and college women’s sports teams. In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled schools can determine eligibility for women’s sports based on biological sex, affirming that such bans do not violate Title IX. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the majority opinion, while Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, arguing transgender athletes retain constitutional rights to challenge the bans.

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.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that President Donald Trump could remove Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter but could not dismiss Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook. The decision overturned a 1935 precedent limiting presidential authority over agency panels, with the majority asserting the FTC must be controlled by the executive branch. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, emphasizing the importance of agency independence.

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.

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.

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 Supreme Court features an exhibition on the nation's 250th anniversary, highlighting legal arguments for independence. Justices have delivered historical lessons in recent cases, referencing colonial-era laws and Founding Fathers' practices, with examples from cases like Abouammo v. United States and United States v. Hemani.

The U.S. Supreme Court allowed President Trump to remove Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter but blocked his attempt to fire Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook. The 6-3 decision overturned a 1935 precedent, expanding presidential authority over agency panels but affirming limits on removing Federal Reserve members.

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 financial disclosure forms reveal Justice Sonia Sotomayor received $4,333 in concert tickets from Rimas Entertainment during a trip to Puerto Rico, while other justices disclosed book royalties and teaching income. The forms highlight ongoing scrutiny of justices' off-bench activities, including Justice Clarence Thomas's unreported luxury travel and book deals generating over $1 million for Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Amy Coney Barrett.

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.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that President Donald Trump could remove Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter but not Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook. The decision overturned a 1935 precedent limiting presidential removal power over agency appointees, with Chief Justice John Roberts arguing the Federal Trade Commission exercises executive power requiring presidential control. Three liberal justices dissented, warning the ruling undermines agency independence.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police need warrants to access cellphone location history data under the Fourth Amendment. The 6-3 decision centered on a 2019 Virginia credit union robbery case, with Justice Elena Kagan writing that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their cellphone location records. The ruling leaves unresolved questions about when such searches are considered reasonable.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that President Donald Trump could fire Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter but could not remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board. The decision overturned a 1935 precedent, expanding presidential authority over agency panels while preserving limits on removing Federal Reserve members. The ruling split along ideological lines, with the majority emphasizing executive control over agencies exercising executive power and dissenters warning of reduced independence for regulatory bodies.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that President Donald Trump could remove Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter but could not dismiss Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook. The decision overturned a 1935 precedent limiting presidential removal power, expanding executive authority over agency panels. Justices split along ideological lines, with the majority asserting the FTC must be controlled by the president due to its exercise of executive power.

A court ruling allowing Trump to dismiss officials was criticized by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who argued it expands a 'maximalist view of presidential power.' The dissent warns of potential chaos from such an interpretation.

The Supreme Court allowed Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook to remain in her position while challenging President Donald Trump's attempt to fire her but upheld his removal of heads of other independent federal agencies. The ruling expanded presidential power by overturning a 91-year-old decision that limited removal authority for agency board members, with six conservative justices in the majority and Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissenting.

The Supreme Court ruled that presidents can fire heads of independent federal agencies without cause, except for the Federal Reserve, allowing President Donald Trump to remove Rebecca Slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission but blocking his attempt to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook. The 6-3 decision, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, overturned a 91-year-old precedent to expand executive power, with dissenting Justice Sonia Sotomayor warning of potential risks.

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, centered on Mississippi's law allowing ballots postmarked by Election Day to arrive within five business days, preserves grace periods in thirteen states. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, stated federal law does not override state election rules for mail-in ballots.