Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
This is what a 6-3 Supreme Court looks like.
Reposted by Chris Geidner
https://bsky.app/profile/chrisgeidner.bsky.social
Dania Palanker
@ipersist.bsky.social
Follow
Hard to say it better than Sotomayor. The Supreme Court is "unabashedly remaking the law in its preferred image."
Chris Geidner
@chrisgeidner.bsky.social
· 5h
NEW: This is what a 6-3 Supreme Court looks like.
On a rainy Tuesday in Washington, D.C., the reality of today's high court was abundantly clear as the court handed down four 6-3 decisions moving the law to the right.
Today, at Law Dork:
This is what a 6-3 Supreme Court looks like
On a rainy Tuesday in Washington, D.C., the reality of today's high court was abundantly clear as the court handed down four 6-3 decisions moving the law to the right.
www.lawdork.com
5:57 PM · Jun 23, 2026
@ipersist.bsky.social
Follow
Hard to say it better than Sotomayor. The Supreme Court is "unabashedly remaking the law in its preferred image."
Chris Geidner
@chrisgeidner.bsky.social
· 5h
NEW: This is what a 6-3 Supreme Court looks like.
On a rainy Tuesday in Washington, D.C., the reality of today's high court was abundantly clear as the court handed down four 6-3 decisions moving the law to the right.
Today, at Law Dork:
This is what a 6-3 Supreme Court looks like
On a rainy Tuesday in Washington, D.C., the reality of today's high court was abundantly clear as the court handed down four 6-3 decisions moving the law to the right.
www.lawdork.com
5:57 PM · Jun 23, 2026
Hard to say it better than Sotomayor. The Supreme Court is "unabashedly remaking the law in its preferred image."
— Dania Palanker (@ipersist.bsky.social) 2026-06-23T21:57:51.712Z
Chris Geidner
@chrisgeidner.bsky.social
NEW: This is what a 6-3 Supreme Court looks like.
On a rainy Tuesday in Washington, D.C., the reality of today's high court was abundantly clear as the court handed down four 6-3 decisions moving the law to the right.
Today, at Law Dork:
This is what a 6-3 Supreme Court looks like
On a rainy Tuesday in Washington, D.C., the reality of today's high court was abundantly clear as the court handed down four 6-3 decisions moving the law to the right.
www.lawdork.com
1:38 PM · Jun 23, 2026
@chrisgeidner.bsky.social
NEW: This is what a 6-3 Supreme Court looks like.
On a rainy Tuesday in Washington, D.C., the reality of today's high court was abundantly clear as the court handed down four 6-3 decisions moving the law to the right.
Today, at Law Dork:
This is what a 6-3 Supreme Court looks like
On a rainy Tuesday in Washington, D.C., the reality of today's high court was abundantly clear as the court handed down four 6-3 decisions moving the law to the right.
www.lawdork.com
1:38 PM · Jun 23, 2026
NEW: This is what a 6-3 Supreme Court looks like.
— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) 2026-06-23T17:38:32.301Z
On a rainy Tuesday in Washington, D.C., the reality of today's high court was abundantly clear as the court handed down four 6-3 decisions moving the law to the right.
Today, at Law Dork:
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
In that case, the court’s majority gutted the Alien Tort Statute, holding that courts cannot authorize lawsuits under the act for even “heinous and inhumane acts“ contrary to international law. The decision gets Cisco out of a lawsuit over allegations that it designed a surveillance system for the Chinese Communist Party that, the lawsuit claims, was used to enable the torture of religious minorities.
The court’s majority also gave Exxon a win by reading the Helms-Burton Act so expansively that the company doesn’t even need to show that one of the exceptions to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applies to authorize its suit against to Cuban-owned companies.
The court’s majority made it harder to sue prison officials in their personal capacity for even flagrant violations of court decisions under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. RLUIPA was passed under the Spending Clause, meaning that its obligations are a requirement to receive certain federal funding, and, as such, the court held that RLUIPA lawsuits are allowed only where the party consented to suit. Since the individual Louisiana prison officials who allegedly violated RLUIPA didn’t sign the federal contract, they hadn’t consented to being sued — and no suit is allowed.
Finally, the court’s majority made it easier to take green cards from some people with virtually no process at the border. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, lawful permanent residents can generally return to the U.S. from elsewhere easily, unless one of six exceptions applies. One of those is for a person who has committed a crime of moral turpitude. The question was when the government needs to show that exception applies, and the majority decided that the government can just act on suspicion at the border and does not need to meet its burden to show the exception applies until a removal hearing at a later time.
“I worry that the Court has now handed the Government a massive blank check,“ Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in dissent.
The court’s majority also gave Exxon a win by reading the Helms-Burton Act so expansively that the company doesn’t even need to show that one of the exceptions to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applies to authorize its suit against to Cuban-owned companies.
The court’s majority made it harder to sue prison officials in their personal capacity for even flagrant violations of court decisions under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. RLUIPA was passed under the Spending Clause, meaning that its obligations are a requirement to receive certain federal funding, and, as such, the court held that RLUIPA lawsuits are allowed only where the party consented to suit. Since the individual Louisiana prison officials who allegedly violated RLUIPA didn’t sign the federal contract, they hadn’t consented to being sued — and no suit is allowed.
Finally, the court’s majority made it easier to take green cards from some people with virtually no process at the border. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, lawful permanent residents can generally return to the U.S. from elsewhere easily, unless one of six exceptions applies. One of those is for a person who has committed a crime of moral turpitude. The question was when the government needs to show that exception applies, and the majority decided that the government can just act on suspicion at the border and does not need to meet its burden to show the exception applies until a removal hearing at a later time.
“I worry that the Court has now handed the Government a massive blank check,“ Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in dissent.
