Ketanji Brown Jackson

The Supreme Court’s Ruling on National Injunctions Will Hurt Us All—Immigrants First

PUBLISHED 6/30/2025 by

In a 6-3 decision last Friday, the Supreme Court granted the Trump administration a partial, but crucial, victory in its efforts to stop federal courts from blocking Trump’s agenda.

The vehicle for this power grab, CASA v. Trump, is a case about the legality of denying citizenship to children born to parents who are in the U.S. unlawfully or temporarily. In the majority’s ruling that nationwide injunctions were probably outside the federal judiciary’s authority, and therefore, judges should limit their orders to the parties and plaintiffs before them, it has tipped the balance of power to the president. And that is going to make many people’s lives—immigrants and nonimmigrants alike—much more difficult.

As Support for Abortion Grows, the Court Doubles Down on Restricting Care

PUBLISHED 6/30/2025 by

In its Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic ruling last week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a devastating blow to reproductive health clinics across the nation. A substantial slate of decisions issued by the Court Friday dealt several more severe blows to the rule of law and our constitutional rights—though a silver lining was the Court’s decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act’s preventive-care mandate.

Trump Administration Drops Lawsuit to Protect Emergency Abortion Access: ‘A Cruel and Callous Act That Could Cost Pregnant Idahoans Their Lives’

PUBLISHED 3/14/2025 by

The Trump administration’s recent decision to drop the Biden-era lawsuit defending emergency abortion access in Idaho under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) is another powerful indication of its intent to dismantle existing federal protections for sexual and reproductive health.

Anticipating this move, St. Luke’s Health System filed filed a new lawsuit against Idaho during the first month of Trump’s presidency. On March 3, upon learning that dismissal was imminent, St. Luke’s sought and was granted a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo—meaning Idaho remains barred from enforcing its criminal abortion law to the extent it conflicts with EMTALA. At least for the moment, pregnant Idahoans with emergency medical conditions that pose serious threats to their health are not faced with the dilemma of whether to be airlifted out of the state to receive stabilizing abortion care or wait until an abortion becomes necessary to prevent their death. However, the case is far from over, and the eventual outcome is uncertain—especially if it winds up again before the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority.

Dropping the ‘Respectfully’ in Dissent: What ‘Trump v. U.S.’ Means for the Country’s Future

PUBLISHED 7/23/2024 by

The Supreme Court majority’s extreme belief in Trump v. U.S. that our president is above the law is anathema to the history of our nation.

In almost every case, the dissenting justices write, “I respectfully dissent,” but both Sotomayor and Jackson omit the “respectfully” in their dissents in Trump v. U.S. There is little to cling to in this decision. It is as un-American as can be.

EMTALA Dissents: Jackson Warns of ‘Storm Clouds’ for Pregnant Women, While Conservatives Long for Fetal Personhood

PUBLISHED 6/28/2024 by

The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the EMTALA case drew the fierce ire of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Warning of the “storm clouds [that] loom ahead,” Jackson condemned the Court’s failure to resolve the case on the merits, in accordance with the long-settled principle that “state laws that conflict with federal laws, are ‘without effect.’”

In an alternate dissent, the Court’s hardcore conservative justices—Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch—paid homage to the unborn child.

21st-Century Medical Care Is for Everyone, Including Pregnant People

PUBLISHED 6/28/2024 by

The Supreme Court has come down on the major abortion case Moyle v. United States, effectively dismissing the case and leaving pregnant women and healthcare providers in Idaho without answers.

I just had the privilege of experiencing the very best of American modern medicine this week for my knee surgery. We celebrate our American medical system as the best in the world—so why would we voluntarily decide to deny the care that I just received this past week to women in 21 states in our country?

SCOTUS Rejects Biden’s Bid for Emergency Abortion Care, Risking Lives of Women in Texas and Other Abortion Ban States

PUBLISHED 6/26/2024 by , , , and | UPDATED 10/8/2024 at 8:11 A.M. PT

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a request from the Biden administration to send a dispute over emergency abortions in Texas back to the lower courts. The Court dealt with a set of similar cases out of Idaho in June without reaching a conclusive decision on the federal law in question, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA).

“Recently, the world has heard the story of Amber Thurman, a young woman who died because of Georgia’s extreme abortion ban,” said Noreen Farrell, executive director of Equal Rights Advocates. “Today’s punt by the Supreme Court will lead to more cases like Amber’s. … The Court is telling women in states with bans that need abortion care to save their life: ‘We don’t care.'”

In U.S. v. Rahimi, Domestic Violence Victims Live to Die Another Day

PUBLISHED 6/21/2024 by

Friday morning, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that a law restricting firearms access for a narrow class of individuals subject to a specific kind of domestic violence restraining order does not violate the Second Amendment. The ruling is a “win” in much the same way the Court’s ruling in the mifepristone case FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine earlier this month is a win: The Court did the “bare minimum” necessary to cling to the last vestiges of its legitimacy.

The threat posed by violent abusers like Zackey Rahimi might be temporarily disarmed today, but the threat posed by the Supreme Court’s patriarchal agenda remains a loaded weapon.