U.S. top court to rule on last cases as talk about Kennedy swirls

[webfact]

U.S. top court to rule on last cases as talk about Kennedy swirls

By Lawrence Hurley

 

A couple sit in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, U.S. on May 16, 2016. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/Files

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court is set to issue the final rulings of its current term on Monday, including one on religious rights, amid talk that swing voter Justice Anthony Kennedy is considering retirement.

 

The court in the coming days is also expected to act on President Donald Trump's emergency request seeking to revive his travel ban on people entering the United States from six Muslim-majority countries, which was blocked by lower courts.

 

Although there are no firm indications that Kennedy, 81 in July, will step down, some of his former law clerks have said he is considering it. Any announcement could come after the court has finished issuing its rulings on Monday morning.

 

Kennedy has repeatedly declined to respond to media requests seeking comment on his plans. He joined his former law clerks at a reunion event on Saturday night, with several attendees saying he did not address the rumors.

 

If Kennedy were to retire, President Donald Trump, a Republican, would have a historic opportunity to recast the court in a more conservative posture, possibly for decades to come. He has already appointed one conservative justice, Neil Gorsuch. But Gorsuch replaced a conservative in a similar mold, Justice Antonin Scalia, who died last year. Replacing Kennedy, the swing vote for the last decade on the closely divided court, would be more significant. Kennedy has sided with the court's four liberals on some major issues, most notably gay rights.

 

Speaking on ABC's "This Week" program on Sunday, Kellyanne Conway, a Trump adviser, declined to say if there has been any communication between the White House and Kennedy.

 

The nine justices are due to rule in six cases, not including their decision expected in the coming days on the travel ban.

 

Of the remaining cases argued during the court's current term, which began in October, the most eagerly awaited one concerns a Missouri church backed by a conservative Christian legal group. The ruling potentially could narrow the separation of church and state.

 

The church sued after being denied state taxpayer funds for a playground improvement project because of a Missouri constitutional provision barring state funding for religious entities.

 

Trinity Lutheran could be headed for a lopsided win, with two liberal justices joining their conservative colleagues in signaling support during the April oral argument. It was one of the first in which Trump's conservative appointee to the court, Neil Gorsuch, participated.

 

The most notable of three immigration-related cases in which rulings are due on Monday is a dispute over whether immigrants detained by the U.S. government for more than six months while deportation proceedings unfold should be able to request their release. The case takes on additional significance with Trump ratcheting up immigration enforcement, placing more people in detention awaiting deportation.

 

The court also is set to decide a case that could clarify the criminal acts for which legal immigrants may be deported. Another involves whether the family of a Mexican teenager shot dead while standing on Mexican soil by a U.S. Border Patrol agent in Texas can sue for civil rights violations.

 

As the justices look to finish work before their summer break, they must decide what to do with Trump's travel ban, which was blocked by lower courts. The administration wants the ban to go into effect while the litigation continues.

 

The March 6 executive order called for a 90-day ban on travelers from Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and a 120-day ban on all refugees entering the United States to let the government implement stronger vetting. Trump has said the order is needed for national security.

 

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley, Additional reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham and Phil Berlowitz)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-06-26

[darksidedog]

I sincerely hope Justice Kennedy will hang on a little longer. I can see where the court will be headed if Trump gets to install a couple of "loyal" new faces.

[kamahele]

This justice has been a conservative with a heart on occasion  casting a swing vote siding with the "liberal" justices. Sad to see him go, we'll be worse off for it but he has earned the right to retire.

[impulse]

Not specific to this guy, but they need to impose a mandatory retirement age for SCOTUS justices.  

 

Let's face it, mental faculties and the energy to do top quality work fade with age, not to mention the risk of having a senile justice sitting for years before retiring or dying. 

 

Mandatory retirement age is fair and takes out a lot of the uncertainty about when a new justice will need to be appointed, and when one of them really, really needs to step aside- willingly or otherwise.

 

[tigermoth]

I, like all the western friends I have are all fed up with the amount of sewerage spewing forth from USA news broadcasters. There are other countries in the world with far more pressing problems than having a phsycotic president. No one watches USA news anymore as it is the same old garbage day after day.

[Traveler19491]

Kennedy has been, for years now, one of the few sane "conservative" voices on the court. Roberts ("We live in a post-racial society"), Thomas (who has asked a total of one question from the bench in the last ten years), Alito, and Gorsuch are all borderline extremists. Ginsburg is the same on the left. While I typically disagreed with Kennedy's conservative positions, they were usually well-reasoned and based in reality. The other "conservatives" base their arguments on ideology and not on a modern interpretation of the Constitution. It will be a shame to see him go as I fear that Trump or Pence will appoint Justices friendly to a vastly more extremist/theocratic approach. 

[farcanell]

1 hour ago, tigermoth said:

 No one watches USA news anymore as it is the same old garbage day after day.

I do... moreso now than ever.

 

i find it to be an entertaining alternative to "the simpsons" and "family guy".... how can one not laugh at his golden throned tweet room antics?

 

[nasanews]

So, is Justice Anthony Kennedy the last good Justice in the Supreme Court!

[ELVIS123456]

2 hours ago, impulse said:

Not specific to this guy, but they need to impose a mandatory retirement age for SCOTUS justices.  

 

Let's face it, mental faculties and the energy to do top quality work fade with age, not to mention the risk of having a senile justice sitting for years before retiring or dying. 

 

Mandatory retirement age is fair and takes out a lot of the uncertainty about when a new justice will need to be appointed, and when one of them really, really needs to step aside- willingly or otherwise.

 

If Pilots and Doctors are required to retire at a certain age, then so should SCOTUS members.

 

[hawker9000]

On ‎6‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 8:33 PM, impulse said:

Not specific to this guy, but they need to impose a mandatory retirement age for SCOTUS justices.  

 

Let's face it, mental faculties and the energy to do top quality work fade with age, not to mention the risk of having a senile justice sitting for years before retiring or dying. 

 

Mandatory retirement age is fair and takes out a lot of the uncertainty about when a new justice will need to be appointed, and when one of them really, really needs to step aside- willingly or otherwise.

 

Who's "they".  All it takes is a Constitutional Amendment.  If mandatory retirement is so obviously fair, then enough people will agree with you, and you should have no problem doing it. 

 

Let's face it, there's no such support, is there?   If you think you have an argument, and the risk is so great, then why not give us examples of senile Supreme Court justices who remained on the bench?

 

While various health problems do stack up with old age, the "fading of mental faculties" is just one such, and by no means affects the entire population.  

 

Your comments strongly suggest that you're simply an ageist and should probably think about reining in your prejudices.  According to the NYT, dementia rates are actually falling, BTW.

 

 

[impulse]

1 hour ago, hawker9000 said:

Who's "they".  All it takes is a Constitutional Amendment.  If mandatory retirement is so obviously fair, then enough people will agree with you, and you should have no problem doing it. 

 

Let's face it, there's no such support, is there?   If you think you have an argument, and the risk is so great, then why not give us examples of senile Supreme Court justices who remained on the bench?

 

While various health problems do stack up with old age, the "fading of mental faculties" is just one such, and by no means affects the entire population.  

 

Your comments strongly suggest that you're simply an ageist and should probably think about reining in your prejudices.  According to the NYT, dementia rates are actually falling, BTW.

 

Google "senile supreme court justices" and you'll see that I'm not the only ageist.  Even some justices themselves worry that they'll stay on after changes in their mental facilities that they they don't recognize.

 

I also favor term limits for elected officials.  But I doubt we'll ever see them vote for their own demise, either.

 

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies about the election results have been removed.