Elie Mystal explains why he thinks Chief Justice John Roberts is a “far more dangerous” threat to democracy than Donald Trump. “If you are a nonwhite citizen, he is the person stopping you from voting. Not Donald Trump, not Stephen Miller, not the Republican Party in the White House. It has been, and it always has been, John Roberts.”
Percival has used social media to criticize judges in recent weeks who have made unfavorable rulings on the Trump administration’s immigration policies.
The president joined Republican officials who slammed the National Academies of Sciences for a chapter about climate science in an educational guide for judges.
Judges are becoming AI firewalls, setting guidelines for lawyers and litigants entering their courtrooms and reprimanding those who fail to vet their research or cite fake AI-generated cases. - But judges are also navigating how to use the tech themselves. Why it matters: As attorney sanctions mount for irresponsible AI use, judges' chambers are at the center of the push and pull between innovation and caution. Some early adopters see AI use as a catalyst for justice — while other jurists remain staunchly skeptical. - "AI has the possibility to be an incredible value adder and force maximizer in the federal judiciary," says Amy Cyphert, a West Virginia University College of Law professor. "But it also has the potential to undermine…
Any successful means of getting rid of or reducing the power of the judges will require breaking precedents and norms.
All week, current and retired judges have spoken out about about physical threats to judges and a rising tide of criticism from politicians and elected officials.
Far from being the bold MAGA court that Trump supporters campaigned so hard to attain, this court has retreated to near irrelevancy.
The Supreme Court straightens out immigration law.
Kimberly Prost, a Canadian judge at the International Criminal Court, and two colleagues are suing the administration, saying the sanctions were a form of retaliation.