Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Prof. Anil Kalhan on United States v. Texas: The Supreme Court’s Silent Endorsement of Trumpisprudence

June 30, 2016 (1 min read)

Prof. Anil Kalhan, June 27, 2016 - " [B]y affirming the legally flawed and deeply politicized lower court decisions blocking the Obama administration’s immigration initiatives — the substance of which I have previously discussed in several essays for Dorf on Law (herehere, and here), an essay for Yale Journal on Regulation Notice and Comment, an essay for Washington Monthly, and an article in the UCLA Law Review Discourse — the Supreme Court’s decision necessarily embraces modes of legal analysis and adjudication that the Court should have openly and decisively repudiated. And by doing so instead under the cover of an opaque, unsigned opinion that reports only the bare fact of the Court’s stalemate, the four justices who voted to affirm those decisions — presumably Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito — obscure their own roles from public scrutiny at the expense of transparency and accountability. (Which, as it happens, are among the very rule of law values that the Obama administration’s immigration initiatives themselves, by contrast, actually help to promote.)"