The Justices

Question 1

O’Connor

Answer 1

Sympathetic to states rights. But lil racist.
- Lujan - dissented thought they could have standing.

-Allen v. Wright - black parents cant sue private schools

Question 2

CLARENCE THOMAS (Conservative)

Answer 2

Bush (1991-?) Formalist. Loves the Constitution.

Laufer v. Acheson - would have denied the case for Standing - mustn’t let “tester” cases through.

Rucho v. Common Cause: Gerrymandering is not a justiciable issue for courts to hear.

Texas v. US (2024): would have overturned the Supremacy Clause, allowed Texas to defy Border Patrol mandates, using Art. I (10)

Lopez (1995): Would limit the Commerce Clause power to only the buying and selling (and maybe) transportation of goods.

CA v. TX: doesn’t dissent like Gorsuch and Alito bc he doesnt think case or controversy for the ACA lawsuit, no injury.

Hamdi (2004): BROAD EXECUTIVE POWER, dissents, not up to the court to determine whose an enemy combatant or question Executives war powers.

Boumediene v. Bush: BROAD EXECUTIVE POWER would have kept the congressional review act for detainees. Habeus not ensured for ALIENS.

Trump v. Hawaii: Universal injunctions are unconstitutional

Fulton v City of PHL: in favor of a strongly protective freedom of exercise clause- want strict scrutiny for laws that burden exercise of religion. Smith should be overruled.

Question 3

JOHN ROBERTS (Mod-Conservative)

Answer 3

Bush (2005-?) Chief J.

Rucho v. Common Cause: Gerrymandering is not a justiciable issue for courts to hear.

Texas v. U.S. : the a conservative justice that helped uphold the Supremacy Clause

Sebelius (1st Obama Care case)
TX v CA (2nd Obama Care case)

Boumediene v. Bush: would have kept the congressional review act for detainees. / citizens lose power of shaping federal policy re enemy combatants

Trump v. Hawaii: Rational review basis for establishment clause. DHS has reasons to ban these 7-9 countries, so on it’s face, it makes sense.

Question 4

ALITO (Conservative)

Answer 4

Bush (2006-!!)

Rucho v. Common Cause: Gerrymandering is not a justiciable issue for courts to hear.

Texas v. US (2024): would have overturned the Supremacy Clause, allowed Texas to defy Border Patrol mandates, using Art. I (10)

Boumediene v. Bush: BROAD EXECUTIVE POWER would have kept the congressional review act for detainees. Habeas not for aliens.

Trump v. Hawaii: Rational review basis for establishment clause. DHS has reasons to ban these 7-9 countries, so on it’s face, it makes sense.

Fulton v City of PHL: in favor of a strongly protective freedom of exercise clause- want strict scrutiny for laws that burden exercise of religion. Smith should be overruled.

Question 5

KAVANAUGH (Conservative)

Answer 5

Rucho v. Common Cause: Gerrymandering is not a justiciable issue for courts to hear.

Texas v. US (2024): would have overturned the Supremacy Clause, allowed Texas to defy Border Patrol mandates, using Art. I (10)

Fulton v City of PHL: in favor of a strongly protective freedom of exercise clause- want strict scrutiny for laws that burden exercise of religion. Smith should be overruled.

Question 6

KAGAN (Liberal)

Answer 6

Obama (2010-!!)

Rucho - dissented, gerrymandering is a constitutional violation

Trump v. Hawaii: dissented that challenges to establishment clause should receive heightened scrutiny. The provision on it’s face is unconstitutional bc of racist comments made by Trump.

Question 7

SOTOMAYOR (Liberal)

Answer 7

Rucho - dissented, gerrymandering is a constitutional violation

Trump v. Hawaii: dissented that challenges to establishment clause should receive heightened scrutiny. The provision on it’s face is unconstitutional bc of racist comments made by Trump.

Question 8

BARRETT (Mod-Conservative)

Answer 8

Texas v. U.S. : the a conservative justice that helped uphold the Supremacy Clause

Part of Dobbs Majority.

Fulton v City of PHL: in favor of a strongly protective freedom of exercise clause- want strict scrutiny for laws that burden exercise of religion. Smith should be overruled.

Question 9

JACKSON (Liberal)

Answer 9

Likely to vote liberally as Breyer, who she replaced.

Question 10

GORSUCH (Conservative)

Answer 10

Rucho v. Common Cause: Gerrymandering is not a justiciable issue for courts to hear.

Texas v. US (2024): would have overturned the Supremacy Clause, allowed Texas to defy Border Patrol mandates, using Art. I (10)

Trump v. Hawaii: Rational review basis for establishment clause. DHS has reasons to ban these 7-9 countries, so on it’s face, it makes sense.