The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
For the First Time, Supreme Court Splits 5-4 Along Gender Lines
The Court denied the Biden's request for a stay of a lower court injunction against new immigration enforcement guidelines.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court divided 5-4 over whether to stay a lower court injunction against a Biden Administration immigration enforcement guidance. A district court in Texas issued a nationwide injunction against the guidance that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit refused to stay.
This was the first published order in which Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson participated. It was also the first time the Court has ever split 5-4 along gender lines (and the first time that such a split was even possible). All four female justices voted to grant the stay in United States v. Texas. The five male justices did not. The Court did, however, grant certiorari in the case on the following questions:
1. Whether the state plaintiffs have Article III standing to challenge the Department of Homeland Security's Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law;
2. Whether the Guidelines are contrary to 8 U.S.C. §1226(c) or 8 U.S.C. §1231(a), or otherwise violate the Administrative Procedure Act; and
3. Whether 8 U.S.C. §1252(f)(1) prevents the entry of an order to "hold unlawful and set aside" the Guidelines under 5 U.S.C. §706(2).
In another challenge to the same guidance, Arizona v. Biden, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit initially stayed and then overturned a district court injunction. The Sixth Circuit questioned the states' standing and whether the guidance is a reviewable final agency action. Chief Judge Sutton also wrote separately questioning whether the district court had jurisdiction to enjoin the guidance under 8 U.S.C. §1252(f)(1) and the propriety of a nationwide injunction. This conflicting opinion was no doubt one reason for granting certiorari, and argument will be heard in early December.
Justice Barrett's split with the more conservative justices here is reminiscent of her vote in last term's Biden v. Texas, in which she disagreed with Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito on the merits of the Biden Administration's claims.
In other news, the Court issued an order on Friday indicating that the two university affirmative action cases are no longer consolidated. The Court has separate the case against Harvard University from the case against the University of North Carolina, and the two cases will be argued separately. As anticipated, Justice Jackson has also recused from the Harvard case.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
All lawyers are feminists. They want to plunder the assets of productive people, including the productive female spouse. Feminism is not a female idea. It is a masking ideology by the scumbag lawyer profession to go after those assets.
Kavanaugh is a big feminist.
Great tweet by Axios. I hope he does not forget all the lawyers.
https://twitter.com/axios/status/1550420232837238785
Schedule F, only a good beginning. Do not forget those federal benches.
Hey, Behar, did you know that the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs had actually been to an Ivy League law school?
David. I did not know that. Thank you.
Not guilty!
Ed. Do you use a generic, she, when referring to a criminal, 90% being male? If you do, you may be a feminist.
Funny!
Won’t be the last time.
Very accomodating of the Court to now split the cases and avoid having PBJ forced to recuse completely.
...You mean Ketanji Brown Jackson?
My mind immediately went here.
No, I mean PBJ. Anyone to stupid or dishonest to know what a woman is might just as well be a PBJ.
Also a protest in general against the practice of initial acronyms.
For the First Time, Supreme Court Splits 5-4 Along Gender Lines
I think you mean "sex."
If gender is self-assigned, and if one of the Justices doesn't know what woman is, then we have a maximum of 8 Justices capable of offering a gender.
None of them are biologists, so I believe under the Jackson Rule none of them are qualified to say what their gender is. Without a biologist's certification, the gender of every Supreme Court justice is fundamentally unknowable. It's possible that every Supreme Court justice throughout history has been a woman, there are some things we just don't know.
That raises a fascinating question: did Jackson ever actually profess to be a woman? Or did Biden just assume that she checked the required boxes?
The Supreme Court has spoken on this matter. 135 times it ruled the meaning of a word is its dictionary definition. Woman is a female individual, it says. She should have known that reply, see the dictionary. She kowtows to the woke, and is woke. That means, she is a servant of the Chinese Commie Party trying to destroy our country from within. She should be impeached in 2025.
Well now that you mention it I've kind of wondered about Kavanaugh and Roberts does seem to have a strong feminist vibe.
How could biologists know? Gender has nothing to do with biology.
I am waiting for the case where a defendant claims that he could not possibly have engaged in intentional gender discrimination against the plaintiffs because the defendant did not know and could not possibly have known what their gender was, therefore could not possibly have formed the requisite intent.
I am waiting for the case where a defendant challenges a disparate relationship impact claims on geounds that the plaintiffs do not know and present no valid reason evidence of the gender of the comparator individuals who were allegedly treated differently, that indeed, the supposed evidence of their gender represents nothing more than stereotypes and is not evidence at all, and accordingly, the plaintiffs cannot prove the existence of disparate impact discrimination.
It seems to me that once courts adapt a position that gender is just a state of mind and associating it with particular physical characteristics or behavior is just stereotyping, it follows that gender discriminant nation can never be proved by physical or behavioral evidence. Since all gender discrimination claims are curewntly based on legal theories thag assume that what people’s gender is is a known rather than a hidden thing, gender discrimination can never be probved, and hence effectively cannot be prohibited, in a world where people’s genders exist as a state of mind not discernable by extrinsic evidence.
The affirmative-action thing is a good sign (unless you're DB). Probably means Harvard will skate even if UNC falls, under some sort of public / private distinction.
Wait, didn't Congress pass some sort of legislation around 1964, making it illegal for private entities to discriminate by race? I must be misremembering...
"Gender" is a grammatical term " a subclass within a grammatical class (such as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (such as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms"
the court split along Sexual Lines, not Gender (OK, I get that EK is "Gender Fluid"(we used to call them "Mannish" HT A Powers)
Frank
Has anyone on the left argued that the significance is any more than grammatical?
Umm, Duh, Yeah, that if you take a Male, cut off his penis, shoot him up with Estrogen, and cut a gash in his groin thats a "Neo Vagina" he/she's a "Woman"
and the opposite,
and the latest Affirmative Action Surpreme, Kareem-Rama-langa-Jackson (love the fake African names, then it always ends with one of the original Slave Owning POTUS's) doesn't even know the difference....
Frank
Don't be too derisive! Your name literally means "man with unattractive penis," so I would think that a fake African name would be a step up.
You mean other than the laws and censorship campaigns around it? Or are you trying to claim that they're just grammar nazis to the nth degree?
How does Alder know how those people identify?
PBJ can't possibly identify as a woman since she doesn't even know what one is.
It is meaningless for Jackson to recuse from the Harvard case
If she was going to provide the 5th vote for a side, then we'd have a 4-4 tie, and Harvard's victory at the Appeals Court level would carry forward.
It's funny, for a moment I had a brain fade, and though "at last, Breyer actually acts as a swing vote!"
But then I recalled he's no longer on the Court.
ACB votes with the liberals and the Volokh comment sections rushes to make racist comments about the newest justice instead.
Must be Monday.
Queenie. So true and an illegales.
So be honest Queenie, is Michael Bird the first Cop who popped an innocent "Dintdonuthin'" civillian that you haven't demanded be executed?
And all of the testimony from the "Battered Cops" shouldn't Bird's testimony have been the most riveting? his being the only Cop who actually murdered, Um, I'm sorry, murdered somebody (unarmed BTW, and Female, Veteran, too bad she wasn't Afro-Amurican)
Bird is a diverse, Democrat thug. He committed a summary, extra-judicial execution of a pro-democracy protester. He took a page from the handbook of the Chinese Commie Party and of the Iranian secret police. He should be arrested, tried, and get the death penalty.
If the life of addict and career criminal, George Floyd, a drling of the pro-criminal Democrat darling, is worth $27 million, that of Ashli Babbitt is worth $100 million. In fact, Floyd's life had a negative value, except for the fake boohooing of Democrats on the stand, and the plunder of tax assets by scumbag lawyer thugs.