Politics
Contributor: The chief justice is to blame for the Supreme Court's free fall
At his 2005 Senate confirmation hearing to be chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, John G. Roberts Jr. famously invoked America’s national pastime in describing his view of the judicial role in our constitutional order: “Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules, they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules, but it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire.”
If only!
Unfortunately, Roberts’ actual career on the high court has been one extensive repudiation of his lofty “umpire” proclamation. In exalting above all other concerns his personal conception of the institutional integrity of the Supreme Court, and by extension the entire judiciary, Roberts has ironically done more than anyone else to delegitimize the courts. His recent wildly out-of-line criticism of President Trump’s call for impeachment of a rogue lower-court judge is just the latest example. For the court’s own sake, in these politically tense times, Roberts must change course immediately.
Roberts first showed his hand in the landmark 2012 Obamacare case, NFIB vs. Sebelius. As was initially reported by CBS News’ Jan Crawford in the immediate aftermath of the decision and subsequently reported in later years by other court-watchers such as CNN’s Joan Biskupic, Roberts initially intended to rule against the constitutionality of the healthcare law’s individual mandate — its most controversial feature.
But at some point during the court’s deliberations, Roberts changed his mind. He decided that he could throw a bone to the court’s conservative bloc by ruling against the mandate on Commerce Clause grounds, which the law’s drafters and the Obama administration alike had cited as its constitutional basis. But Roberts threw an even larger bone to the court’s liberal bloc, unilaterally opting to rewrite the statute so as to construe the mandate as a “tax” — which Obama himself had repeatedly told a skeptical public that it was not. Obama’s signature domestic achievement was thus upheld.
That is not what a judicial “umpire” calling legal “balls and strikes” looks like. Making matters worse, the timing of Roberts’ flip coincided with Obama’s spring 2012 Rose Garden speech, in which he ludicrously described the possibility that the Supreme Court could nullify his healthcare law as “unprecedented” or “extraordinary.” Did the chief justice conveniently switch his vote in a historically important case so as to mistakenly attempt to maintain the high court’s “institutional integrity” in the face of an imperious president? It certainly seems so.
In the years since the Sebelius decision, there have been any number of additional examples of Roberts ruling in a high-profile case in a way that can only be construed as a clumsy attempt to make “both sides” of the court — and both sides of the broader American public — happy. In the 2022 abortion case of Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which mercifully overturned the Roe vs. Wade decision of 1973, Roberts notably refused to join the Samuel Alito-written majority opinion, opting to write separately and merely concur in the judgment. It was a classic Roberts move: He argued the court could uphold Mississippi’s underlying 15-week abortion ban statute without overturning Roe.
Roberts’ Dobbs stunt was legally incoherent to the point of outright intellectual dishonesty, but it was politically convenient for Roberts’ idiosyncratic conception of the role of the Supreme Court chief justice — that of a jurist who should somehow attempt to “rise above the fray” and steer the ship of the court in a way that preserves the court’s public image and integrity. But once again: That is certainly not what a judicial “umpire” calling legal “balls and strikes” looks like.
Roberts’ pointed criticism this week of Trump’s call for the impeachment of Judge James Boasberg, who last weekend ruled that midair flights deporting individuals alleged to be associated with a Venezuelan gang had to be turned around, is in line with his history of prioritizing — in ham-handed and self-aggrandizing fashion — what he believes to be the judiciary’s integrity. But on this particular score, Roberts is dead wrong.
Judicial impeachment is a well-established remedy for rogue judicial behavior that goes back to the Jefferson presidency in the early 1800s. It is explicitly countenanced by Article III of the constitutional text, which states that federal judges shall sit only “during good behaviour” — which historically has been understood as coterminous with the “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” clause for presidential impeachment, not related to the substance of decisions, because appeals are considered the route for disagreeing with rulings.
Impeachment is here, there and everywhere a fundamentally political judgment: It is appropriate, Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist No. 65, where there has been “abuse or violation of some public trust.” That is not a legally justiciable standard — it is the bailiwick of politicians, who must exercise prudence and discernment.
Roberts’ most recent outburst is even more absurd given the specific legal context of Boasberg’s standoff with Trump. In this instance, Boasberg ruled against the president’s ability to enforce the nation’s immigration laws. But the “plenary power doctrine” of constitutional law has long held that the judiciary has no business getting involved when the political branches wish to secure our sovereignty. As the notes to the U.S. government’s official online Constitution, available at Congress.gov, state: “[T]he Supreme Court’s jurisprudence reflects that … the Court will accord substantial deference to the government’s immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.”
It seems Boasberg and Roberts need a remedial legal lesson or two.
Fortunately for Roberts, there is something he can do to actually help the judiciary regain credibility in the eyes of the public: He must expedite the Supreme Court’s review, and overturning, of outrageous lower-court decisions that are based less in law than they are in paroxysms of frothing Trump-hatred.
It is true, as it is often now said, that we are in the throes of a constitutional or legal crisis. It just isn’t coming from the direction those claiming as much think it is. The true crisis is coming from an unhinged lower-court judicial insurrection.
If only there were a person uniquely situated to bring these judges to heel and thereby bring the crisis to a halt, thus re-legitimizing the judiciary in earnest. If only!
Josh Hammer’s latest book is “Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.” This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. @josh_hammer
Construction workers unfurled a large printed tarp to cover scaffolding installed at the White House’s front entrance. Doug Burgum, the interior secretary, said President Trump had ordered the repairs after noticing damage to columns.
Politics
WATCH: Trump’s Energy chief reveals what escalating Iran tensions could mean for gas prices
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Energy Secretary Chris Wright is telling Americans not to be concerned about the possibility of another surge of sharp increases in gasoline prices as tensions with Iran have started to escalate once again.
Asked whether Americans should worry about higher prices at the pump and how the Trump administration is preparing to keep the economy stable if the conflict continues to worsen, Wright told Fox News Digital: “It has not been any good behavior from Iran that’s allowed oil to flow. It’s been the United States military.”
“That’s not changing,” he assured, speaking from the Great American State Fair on the National Mall this week.
US CLAWS BACK KEY CONCESSION TO IRAN AFTER FRESH ATTACKS ON COMMERCIAL SHIPS IN STRAIT OF HORMUZ
(Mario Tama/Getty Images) (Mario Tama/Getty Images)
With Iran striking three commercial vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz on Monday and Tuesday, Wright doubled down in urging citizens to not credit Iran for the U.S. military’s work to ensure oil shipments continue flowing through the strait.
“Look, the U.S. Military has been the key asset here,” he said. “They have assured the flow of oil and gas through the Strait of Hormuz throughout. Not at the beginning of this conflict, but through the last six weeks.”
Wright said the administration is closely monitoring global oil supplies as the tentative ceasefire with Iran seemingly came to come to a halt, with President Donald Trump telling Secretary-General Mark Rutte the call for peace with Iran is “over” at the NATO Summit in Turkey on Wednesday.
But, he pointed to the continued shipping through the Strait as evidence that markets should remain stable.
TRUMP SAYS IRAN CEASEFIRE IS ‘OVER’ AFTER IRANIAN ATTACKS TRIGGER MASSIVE US RESPONSE
President Donald Trump speaks at the White House on Tuesday, April 22. (AP/Alex Brandon)
“We’re of course constantly watching the supply of oil, the supply of refined products and what’s going on there,” Wright said. “And I think still all positive trends.”
Beyond geopolitical concerns, Wright also praised the new chain of discounted gas stations across Pennsylvania and New Jersey, Freedom Fuel, which promises customers prices below the national average.
The Trump administration, though not involved with the network, has heavily endorsed the new chain and its 25 locations.
“We love it,” Wright said when asked about Freedom Fuel. “I mean, look, any mechanism we can to lower energy costs for Americans of all kinds, we’re all in on.”
“With Freedom Fuels, they’re just lowering it down to their wholesale price of gasoline,” Wright said. “So they’re not making any money selling gasoline, but they’ve got convenience stores. That’s how most gas stations make money.”
NEWSOM UNDER FIRE AS CALIFORNIA GAS TAX HIKE SENDS PUMP PRICES EVEN HIGHER
Gasoline costs are a known concern for many Americans, and amid surging prices there has been a considerable increase in those opting to purchase electric vehicles to save money long-term at the pump — with Tesla dominating the market for these types of models.
Wright argued one of the benefits to living in America is having the option to choose what type of vehicle you drive.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“We just want people to buy what they would prefer,” he told Fox News Digital when asked his thoughts on increasing calls for support of the electrification of cars. “Consumer choice — you wanna buy an electric car, you wanna buy a gas powered car, diesel powered car, buy a big truck. That’s the choice.”
“That’s why you live in America. You get the choice of all those.”
In 2023, California regulators levied more than $100,000 in fines against the private operator of a federal immigration facility, kicking off a three-year battle over whether detainees who do work at the facilities should be considered employees.
The question went beyond semantics: If considered employees, the detainees would be subject to state worker protection laws.
A legal settlement announced this week now affirms that private immigrant detention facilities are subject to California’s workplace safety and health requirements.
“Every worker deserves a safe and healthy workplace and should be able to report workplace hazards without fear of retaliation,” said Denisse Gómez, spokesperson for the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health or Cal/OSHA.
“Individuals who perform work in these facilities are entitled to workplace safety protections, and this settlement reinforces Cal/OSHA’s commitment to enforcing those protections and safeguarding vulnerable workers,” she added.
Under the settlement between California and the GEO Group, a Florida-based private prison company, the company recently withdrew its legal challenges and agreed to pay more than $100,000 in the fines.
The GEO Group did not respond to requests for comment.
Back in 2023, Cal/OSHA issued $104,510 in fines against the GEO Group. The agency had found six violations of state code by the company after detainees complained about a lack of protective equipment and proper training while cleaning the facility for $1 per day.
Detainees alleged they routinely wiped black mold off shower walls at the facility, saw black dust spew from air vents and used cleaning solutions that lacked instructions during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The biggest fine levied against the GEO Group was for failure to establish and maintain “effective written procedures to reduce employee risk of exposure to aerosol transmissible disease.”
Advocates viewed Cal/OSHA’S recognition of the detainees as workers as a victory that could pave the way for future labor rights fights at other detention centers in the state.
But the GEO Group appealed, arguing that detainees participating in ICE’s voluntary work program make their own schedules and aren’t employees, so hazard exposure couldn’t be “as a result of assigned duties,” as California law states. Plus, the company argued, there wasn’t enough evidence that detainees were exposed to any hazard.
Early last year, the state’s Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board rejected the GEO Group’s argument and found that detainees should be considered “affected employees.”
The GEO Group sued, but three days before a California Superior Court hearing in May, the company and Cal/OSHA reached the settlement.
Along with paying the fines, the GEO Group agreed to draft plans for avoiding aerosol transmissions at 12 secure and reentry facilities in California, including five detention centers that hold immigrants.
“GEO ensures detainees are afforded the necessary tools, equipment, and personal protective equipment … to safely and effectively perform any necessary tasks,” the settlement states.
Gómez said the settlement also leaves intact the appeals board’s ruling that civil immigration detainees who participate in work programs can participate in proceedings anonymously, “acknowledging the potential for retaliation when individuals raise workplace safety concerns.”
But the question of whether detainees are employees and deserve certain protections isn’t entirely resolved — at least not for the federal government.
Last month, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement released new standards for detention facilities across the country. The revised guidelines “emphasize that detainee volunteers participating in the voluntary work program are not considered facility and/or government employees” and thus not entitled to labor regulations.
Attorney Mariel Villarreal said the timing of the new detention standards made her question whether the GEO Group had asked ICE to specify in its standards that detainees are not workers in response to its battle with Cal/OSHA.
“To me, it’s a reaction to this very settlement,” she said. Villarreal works for the California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice, which filed the original complaint on behalf of detainees who said they worked in unsafe conditions.
Villarreal pointed to a Washington Post report that GEO Group executives privately asked ICE to specify that detainees are not employees of the facilities where they work. Two top Trump administration officials, border czar Tom Homan and acting ICE director David Venturella, previously worked for the GEO Group.
New versions of ICE detention standards take effect as contracts are established or modified, so this year’s rules won’t immediately apply to every facility.
An ICE spokesperson did not comment about the settlement. The spokesperson, who did not provide their name in an emailed statement Wednesday, said the agency has begun transitioning detention facilities to meet the 2026 standards, “building on its longstanding commitment to safe, secure, and professional detention operations.”
“ICE has consistently implemented many of these best practices independently, reinforcing its role as the leader in detention operations,” the spokesperson added.
The GEO Group and other immigrant detention center operators have faced other legal battles over workers’ rights, including lawsuits in Washington, Colorado and California over the $1-per-day payment.
Villarreal said she’s confident that the Cal/OSHA settlement would continue to hold even if California facilities incorporated the new standards. But she said she believes the statements are an attempt by the GEO Group to “sidestep responsibility” and avoid the possibility of being fined under similar circumstances in other states.
“These statements in the new standards are a way for them to try and preserve profits as much as possible,” she said. “GEO and ICE are so intertwined at this point that they have the same motives.”
-
Los Angeles, Ca38 minutes agoKnee irritation forces Shohei Ohtani out of Friday start, All‑Star game
-
Detroit, MI1 hour agoDetroit Evening Report: Waymo cars blocking first responders – WDET 101.9 FM
-
San Francisco, CA1 hour agoSan Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie Blocks Vacant Grocery Store Tax Proposal | KQED
-
Miami, FL1 hour agoOregon Battling Miami, Mario Cristobal for Four-Star EDGE Recruit
-
Dallas, TX1 hour agoFC Dallas Forward Logan Farrington Inks Contract Extension
-
Boston, MA1 hour agoRed Sox face lengthy travel issues ahead of series vs. Mets
-
Denver, CO2 hours agoWhat’s going on with the Nuggets? Unpacking an NBA offseason on hold
-
Seattle, WA2 hours agoSeattle Kraken Sign Goaltender Victor Östman and Defenseman Ville Ottavainen to One-Year Deals | Seattle Kraken
