Mark Joseph Stern

U.S. sub sinks Iranian warship off Sri Lanka, killing 87 and expanding war zone A U.S. submarine sank an Iranian warship off the southern coast of Sri Lanka, killing dozens of sailors and dramatically widening Washington's pursuit of the Iranian navy.

A US submarine sinking a lonely, dinky Iranian surface ship an ocean away from the theater of the main conflict—and 9000
miles from North America—makes it pretty clear the US is fighting a general war, without the declaration required by the Constitution. www.reuters.com/world/asia-p...

(And for the record, I do have concerns about the NY court's order in the Malliotakis on the merits. I'm not at all convinced it's correct. But that doesn't mean the Supreme Court can concoct jurisdiction out of thin air to intervene prematurely when that authority plainly does not exist.)

I would feel the same way if the Supreme Court issued a "liberal" shadow docket decision halting a conservative lower court order when it clearly lacked authority to do so. This is pretty basic stuff—it's hard to say SCOTUS is still functioning as a court when it acts without jurisdiction.

I agree, quite apart from the merits of the case. Alito could only defend the Supreme Court's authority to intervene by grievously misrepresenting the facts. The reality is that there's no plausible argument SCOTUS had the power to do what it did. Why didn't that matter to six justices?

NJ argued that NJ Transit was entitled to "interstate sovereign immunity" and could not be sued in other state courts. Today SCOTUS unanimously says no, NJ Transit isn't part of the state, so it can't claim that immunity, and CAN be sued in other state's courts. Big win for plaintiffs.

The second, final Supreme Court decision is Galette v. NJ Transit. Per Sotomayor's unanimous opinion, NJ Transit is NOT an arm of NJ and thus NOT entitled to sovereign immunity.

This is a very good ruling that allows civil suits against NJ Transit! I'm surprised www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

This is a win for the government and a loss for the immigrants, though certainly a very technical case. There will be more opinion(s)!

The Supreme Court's first decision is Urias-Orellana v. Bondi. Per KBJ's unanimous opinion, the INA requires application
of the substantial-evidence standard to the BIA's conclusion that a given set of undisputed facts does not constitute persecution. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

This thread on Alito's outrageously misrepresentation of the facts in the NY voting rights case is so damning. Alito's account was misleading to the point of falsity. And there's nothing anybody can do about it. He gets to toss around bogus claims without any consequence.

'UNIMAGINABLE CRUELTY': Judge Gary Brown, a Trump appointeee from NY, thrashes DHS' treatment of a man who came to the US at 9 as an abuse/neglect victim, has no criminal record and became a college grad.

"The laws of decency condemn such villainy." storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

2022: We worry that substantive due process lets judges impose their policy preferences under the guise of “fundamental rights” that don’t appear in the Constitution

2026: Surprise! The due process clause requires schools to out trans students to their parents. We found it hidden there all along!

Exactly right: “We’re long past the point at which there are neutral legal principles that can be deployed to persuasively reconcile all of the Court’s behavior … It makes the Court at least look like what so many regularly accuse it of being: a font of partisan political power, and not much more.”

As Kagan notes in her dissent, the Court opted not to hear the due process parental rights argument against bans on gender-affirming medical care in Skrmetti, basically setting up a regime where parents can force their trans children back into the closet but cannot help them out of it

A disturbing and hypocritical ruling on so many levels. Especially the due process holding.

The court JUST said there’s no deeply rooted right for women to control their own bodies. But there is a deeply rooted right for parents to know if their kids question their gender at school? Come on.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 25A914 NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, ET AL. v. MICHAEL WILLIAMS, ET AL. ON APPLICATION FOR STAY No. 25A915 PETER KOSINSKI, ET AL. v. MICHAEL WILLIAMS, ET AL. ON APPLICATION FOR STAY [March 2, 2026] The applications for stay presented to JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR and by her referred to the Court are granted. The January 21, 2026 order entered by the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, Index No. 164002/2025, is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the New York state courts and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari in this Court, if such a writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the issuance of the mandate of this Court.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN and JUSTICE JACKSON join, dissenting from grant of stay. The Court's 101-word unexplained order can be summarized in just 7: "Rules for thee, but not for me." Time and again, this Court has said that federal courts have limited jurisdiction. Time and again, this Court has said that federal courts should not interfere with state-court litigation. Time and again, this Court has said that federal courts should not meddle with state election laws ahead of an elec-tion. Today, the Court says: except for this one, except for this one, and except for this one. Ignoring every limit on federal courts' authority, the Court takes the unprecedented step of staying a state trial court's decision in a re-districting dispute on matters of state law without giving the State's highest court a chance to act. Because that order violates basic principles of jurisdiction, federalism, and equity, I respectfully dissent.

BREAKING: SCOTUS blocks New York state court redistricting order, over the strong dissent of the Democratic appointees.

Exclusive | Trump Administration to Drop Defense of Law Firm Sanctions The Justice Dept. plans to abandon its defense of the president’s executive orders that targeted Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, Perkins Coie, and Susman Godfrey.

WHOA: WSJ reporting that DOJ is dropping its appeals of the four law firm executive order rulings as soon as today. www.wsj.com/us-news/law/...

This problem persists in their cited authorities. They cite only five legal cases and two constitutional provisions. At the same time, they have eleven entries for “Sacred Scripture” and citations to Aquinas and Augustine. There are references to the Code of Canon Law, a pontifical council, and nine different popes. Interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment through the lens of Pope Francis is nothing if not novel. Call it Critical Catholic Theory.

So you agree? You think theology shouldn't play a role in Supreme Court rulings?? firstthings.com/what-the-usc...

This perhaps more importantly squanders the Church’s legal goodwill. Authoritative opinions of theology can be material. At SCOTUS credibility is the coin of the realm. It’s unfortunate to see the USCCB throw theirs away with a theocratic Brandeis brief.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops files one (1) amicus brief telling the Supreme Court that the Citizenship Clause means what it says and Trad Cath Republicans start whining about theocracy lol

While advocates have spent YEARS screaming about the mostly-irrelevant 1994 Crime Bill, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (the law at issue here) quietly grinds away, shielding our brutal prison system from whole swathes of accountability, almost completely ignored.

Even if you share my civil libertarian skepticism of this particular law, Mike is correct. It's fundamentally unfair and anti-democratic for the Supreme Court to fault the Congress of 1968 for failing to foresee Second Amendment principles that SCOTUS would make up out of whole cloth decades later.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. JUSTICE KAGAN would grant the petition for a writ of certiorari. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE JACKSON joins, dissenting from denial of certiorari. This case asks whether federal law prohibits the poorest prisoners from splitting the $350 fee required to file a federal lawsuit when it allows everyone else to do so. The answer statutorily appears to be no. Because the decision below held otherwise and deepened a split among the Courts of Appeals, the Court should grant the petition for a writ of certiorari.

Petitioners Topaz Johnson and Ian Henderson were incarcerated at High Desert State Prison in California when they filed this lawsuit in federal court. According to their complaint, corrections officers forced them and a third prisoner to stand in filthy cages that reeked of urine and measured 2.5 feet by 2.5 feet. They alleged that the officers forced them to stand in those cages for nearly nine hours with their hands cuffed behind their backs.

By a 6–3 vote, SCOTUS refuses to review a judge-made rule that bars indigent prisoners from splitting the filing fee among themselves when filing a federal suit—even though everyone else is allowed to split that fee. These defendants were allegedly tortured. www.supremecourt.gov/orders/court...

Really worthwhile project about a justice who *must* be reelected this year if democracy will ever be restored in North Carolina.

Terrified of that one. Don't know what's taking so long. Doesn't augur anything good. Could be the majority is putting together a per curiam that gives us a preview of Callais.

Will we get Louisiana v. Callais, the huge Voting Rights Act case? Doubt it. Too soon.

Trump v. Cook, challenging the president's ability to fire members of the Fed? Maybe. But still feels early. I think they'd prefer to hand down Cook alongside Trump v. Slaughter, which will take longer to finish.

The Supreme Court will hand down more opinions on Wednesday, March 4. Lucky us!

There is a real argument that the Trump administration's ICE excesses are radicalizing judges of all political stripes against him and his admin. Decisions made by ICE (and the agency's general shrug at court orders) have dramatically brought down DOJ's reputation along with it.

Struck down how? Nationwide injunction? An EO is not an agency rule subject to universal vacatur!

'IT ENDS TODAY': A federal judge in NJ says the Trump admin has continued to violate court orders in immigration cases and says he's prepared to haul in DOJ and DHS officials under oath. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Clarence Thomas Just Struck Another Blow to Black Power In his majority ruling in a sleeper case about mail delivery, Thomas opened the door to a new way for Republicans to suppress the Black vote.

In an overlooked decision this week, the Supreme Court ruled that the post office can refuse to deliver your mail, which is KIND OF SIGNIFICANT if you choose to mail your ballot.
To do this work, the anti-democracy wing turned to their favorite “black friend,” Clarence Thomas.

Fantastic piece that counters a bizarrely rosy narrative with no actual basis in fact. Steve is dead-on across the board.

It is not the job of SCOTUS commentators to manipulate data in a flagrant bid to launder the court’s reputation …