Today, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina ("the UNC case") and Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College ("the Harvard case"), which, together, are expected to overturn Grutter v. Bollinger and hold that the use of affirmative action policies in college admissions is unconstitutional.

Happening now: about 100 people, mostly Asian, are gathered in front of the Supreme Court to rally against affirmative action, one day before hearings begin in the Harvard/UNC cases. They are holding signs like: “I am Asian American, I have a dream too” pic.twitter.com/J6f4FKzian

— Amy Qin (@amyyqin) October 30, 2022

The Supreme Court has officially wrapped up its first week of oral arguments for the 2022-2023 term. Two cases cases that especially stand out are Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency and Merrill v. Milligan. The Sackett oral arguments seemed to suggest that the Court may be heading towards changing the standard used for determining whether the federal government has regulatory jurisdiction over an issue:

If oral argument was any indication, the justices recognize the need for greater regulatory certainty, but also recognize the difficulty in drawing a clear line to demarcate where "waters of the United States" end and non-federal waters or lands begin. Much of the argument focused on precisely this question, causing the justices to explore the meaning of the word "adjacent," as the Court previously upheld the EPA and Army Corps' authority over wetlands adjacent to navigable waters in United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, perhaps the high-water mark of Court acquiescence to broad assertions of federal regulatory power under the CWA. Accordingly, the justices considered whether "adjacent wetlands" must be physically connected to navigable waters, must be neighboring to such waters, or must merely be nearby, and most seemed unconvinced with the answers they received from the advocates.

It appears that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has quietly "un-recused" herself from the UNC affirmative action case coming before the Court during its 2022-2023 term. As Dan McLaughlin explained, the case was previously consolidated with a case implicating Harvard in a similar alleged violation:

As I set forth in detail back in February, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has an obligation to recuse herself from the pending case on racial preferences in Harvard admissions because she sat on the Harvard Board of Overseers not only during the events under challenge — which are ongoing — but also during the yearslong defense of the litigation, including at the Supreme Court. Justice Jackson agreed, and testified at her confirmation hearing that she would recuse. But Jackson’s recusal obligation should have extended as well to the consolidated case, for two reasons: because Harvard was engaged in a joint defense of the case with the University of North Carolina (the two cases were consolidated) and because a victory for UNC could redound to the benefit of Harvard in the event that the Court divided 4-4 or reached a fractured outcome in the Harvard case (granting that the two legal standards could end up differing). . .

On Thursday, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson was confirmed to serve as the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court by a vote of 53-47. She will replace Justice Stephen Breyer and be the first Black woman to serve on the Court.

Earlier today, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's nomination to the Supreme Court received a tie vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee. No Republicans voted in favor of the nomination.

News -- In a party-line vote, Senate Judiciary Committee deadlocks 11-11 on the nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson to SCOTUS.

Next up: A vote tonight to discharge the nomination by full Senate. Simple majority is needed
Cloture vote: Thursday
Confirmation: Thursday or Friday

— Manu Raju (@mkraju) April 4, 2022

RNLA’s National Policy Conference is in one week and we thought we would highlight four of the speakers' views on the just-completed Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson.  But as Senator Tom Cotton, who will be awarded the Ed Meese Award at the conference, points out:

The media's cheerleading for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's confirmation, despite her soft-on-crime record, goes beyond bias—it's propaganda.

— Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) March 24, 2022

On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee wrapped up confirmation hearings for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to replace Justice Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court. Join RNLA this Friday at 2:00 p.m. ET for a webinar recapping the week of hearings featuring the Article III Project's Mike Davis and the Ethics and Public Policy Center's Ed Whelan. Register on Zoom here!

On Wednesday, Americans across the country tuned in to day three of the Senate Judiciary Committee's Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. While many of the same topics previously discussed were raised again, there were some clear takeaways from the 10+ hours of discussion between the Committee and Judge Jackson.

In 17 years of closely watching Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson had the worst second day performance of anyone I have watched when she contradicted herself multiple times during questioning. It also became clear that she is soft on crime, not in some sort of abstract way, but she is overly sympathetic to criminals to the detriment of victims. 

1. Judge Jackson stated: “There were no victims” regarding the sentencing of a fentanyl and heroin drug kingpin. While Judge Jackson did add later that were no victims available to testify, as Senator Cotton pointed out, there are definitely victims of a drug kingpin. However, Judge Jackson still twisted a compassionate release statue to reduce the sentence of this drug kingpin.

Asked if she reached out to any of the victims of a heroin trafficker, Ketanji Brown Jackson dismisses the question by saying “there were no victims” pic.twitter.com/FU0SOCLZRX

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) March 22, 2022

On Monday, the Senate Judiciary Committee wrapped up the first day of Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. From the start of the hearing, it became clear that the atmosphere of the hearings would be night and day from the hearings for former President Trump's nominees to the Court (Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch). Ranking Member Chuck Grassley explained during his opening statement:

We will conduct a thorough, exhaustive examination of Judge Jackson’s record and views. We won’t try to turn this into a spectacle based on alleged process fouls. On that front, we’re off to a good start. Unlike the start to the Kavanaugh hearings, we didn’t have repeated, choreographed interruptions of Chairman Durbin during his opening statement like Democrats interrupted me for more than an hour during my opening statement at the Kavanaugh hearing.