Supreme Court Opinions - [June 26, 2025]

Scotusblog ^ | 6/26/25 | staff

[alancarp]

"How do they do that if they claim the EO is unconstitutional? Hard to imagine they would have heard arguments and not address the order?"

That's just it... they didn't hear arguments about the birthright citizenship... just the bit involving the EO injunction itself.

[CFW]

If they were just Catholic or Christian then we know how the court would vote, thank God there are other religions involved.

---

Agreed. Catholic and Christian concerns of perverted teachings in schools would, and have, been dismissed without further discussion.

---

On the Riley case, I’ve read the Court’s opinion. Riley is going to be deported. The issue was regarding a circuit split on jurisdictional issues. SCOTUS sent the case back to the 4th circuit after resolving the issue as to what ruling was a ‘final order”, from which ruling the deadline for appealing the deportation order applied, and whether the circuit court had jurisdiction over that decision.

[9YearLurker]

Ah, yeah. I’m remembering something about that now.

[Tell It Right]

Thank you for posting!

[CFW]

For those wondering, this is the breakdown of the number of Opinions by each justice this far this term:

Per Curiam = 9
Chief Roberts = 6
Thomas = 6
Alito = 5
Kagan = 5
Sotomayor = 6
Gorsuch = 5
Kavanaugh = 6
Barrett = 5
Jackson = 5

[CFW]

Related news:

“The Senate Judiciary Committee approved Donald Trump’s first slate of judicial nominees during his second term, clearing the first procedural hurdle for the president to resume his transformation of the federal judiciary.

The nominees included Whitney D. Hermandorfer, Trump’s pick for the Sixth Circuit, and four nominees for district court seats in Missouri: Zachary M. Bluestone, Joshua M. Divine, Maria A. Lanahan, and Cristian M. Stevens. All were voted out of committee along party lines.

Next, the five potential judges will have votes on the Senate floor. Democrats have little power to thwart them, with a Republican majority of 53 seats.”

[Lazamataz]

Feel free to ignore this post.

[dware]

It holds that the BIA’s order in an order about withholding of removal only is not a “final order of removal” and therefore the 30 day filing deadline cannot be satisified by filing a petition for review within 30 days.

Reads like stereo instructions. Lol. Looking forward to tomorrow! Thanks for keeping us up to date.

[CFW]

It is convoluted:

Here is an article on today’s opinion.

“SCOTUS Decision Could Streamline Deportations”

https://www.dailywire.com/news/scotus-decision-could-streamline-deportations

[gloryblaze]

I expect that Thomas will step down at the end of the next term. Probably Alito as well.

Woe! I still mourn Scalia. Imagining a Court without Thomas OR Alito is just too painful ...

[Sidebar Moderator]

Thanks, FRiend!

[Lazamataz]

It holds that the BIA’s order in an order about withholding of removal only is not a “final order of removal” and therefore the 30 day filing deadline cannot be satisified by filing a petition for review within 30 days.

Here, let me help you decode this convoluted sentence:

"The order holds that the BIA’s order in an order about the order of withholding of removal, in order, is ordered that only is not an order of a “final order of removal” and therefore the order of the 30 day filing deadline cannot be ordered by filing a petition for an order review within 30 days of the second order pertaining to the first order.

"It is so ordered."