The Supreme Court recently ruled in two funding cases with a narrow 5-4 majority, one permitting nearly $2 billion for USAID and the other blocking $65 million for the Department of Education. Despite their similarities, the justifications for these rulings appear inconsistent. Justice Amy Coney Barrett was the only common majority member in both cases, leading to speculation about her influence on future judicial decisions. Notably, Justice Jackson's dissent did not highlight these contradictions, possibly to maintain collegiality with Barrett, as implications for educational funding continue to unfold.
The Supreme Court's recent decisions regarding funding highlight a striking inconsistency, particularly in its approach to USAID and education, as noted by dissenting opinions.
Justice Barrett's role in both cases raises questions about potential shifts in judicial philosophy, as her decisions may lead to future challenges for the Executive.
Collection
[
|
...
]