The Supreme Court recently endorsed Trump's plan to deport certain immigrants to South Sudan, a decision criticized for violating due process rights. This ruling highlighted a notable divergence among the court's progressive justices. Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor dissented, signaling a shift towards a focus on democratic threats rather than mere logical critique of conservative rulings. Elena Kagan stood apart, issuing a concurrence that lacked the urgency shown by her colleagues. Observers noted the implications of this tonal shift among the justices regarding their responses to Trump's policies.
The Supreme Court further blessed a Trump plan to send certain immigrants to turmoil-plagued South Sudan, where they might face torture or death.
Observers were struck not just by the conservative majority's backing of Trump's scheme to punish migrants, but by the unexpected split among the court's progressive justices.
Sotomayor and Jackson have transitioned from critiquing the conservative majority’s logic to alarming about existential democratic dangers.
The tone of Sotomayor’s dissent and Jackson’s approach in Trump-related cases highlights a significant shift among the progressive justices.
Collection
[
|
...
]