Judge Ketanji Brown Jacksonhas been sworn in by the Supreme Court and has a history as the first black woman to serve in the highest court in the country.
She has received the two required pledges. First, Judge John Roberts manages the constitutional vow, and Judge Stephen Breyer manages the second judicial pledge.
Breyer informed the White House on Wednesday that his retirement would take effect on Thursday at noon.
Environmental Protection Agency that broadly regulates carbon emissions from existing power plants This is "catastrophic," according to Carol Browner, the former administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Supreme Court's decision to curb its capabilities.
"Obviously, this court doesn't live in today's world," she said of CNN's Kate Bolduan. Told to.
"The fact that today's way of making electricity is very different from when Thomas Edison invented the electricity of takes into account . No. As with many of the cases in the past weeks, I doubt the legitimacy of the majority of the courts , not completely ignoring the reality of modern life. I'm throwing it, "she added.
She was skeptical that Congress could pass legislation to deal with climate change.
"One of the reasons has an EPA is the difficult task of looking at the laws of , looking at science, and understanding how to get . What you can do. Remove pollution. If they don't, will return to the parliament. And to be honest, especially Senate, is not interested in dealing with the reality of climate change. This is an imminent, imminent problem that needs to be dealt with. " Said Browner.
"This hampers the EPA's ability to deal with emissions from power plants , which means that has already undergone a transition . I'm very worried because I'm sure it's done. And all we have to do is encourage more renewables and is contaminated. How can we reduce the less energy? It's not a departure from the reality of , "she added.
There are other ways to curb climate change, and the administration needs to carefully study its opinions, Browner said. definitely. "
" I know that the agency will do everything that can be continued to deal with climate change . This is the most imminent. Environmental and public health It's a problem we've faced so far, "she said.
The Supreme Court has the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to broadly regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants. Was suppressed. Of global warming.
Supreme Court Secretary John Roberts wrote his opinion on the conservative majority, opposed by three liberal judges.
Thursday's Supreme CourtWest Virginia v. It is a public health disaster. Secretary Xavier Besera said in a press release Thursday.
"This extreme court case is a public retreat when we need it badly. It's a sanitary disaster. It's progressing, "Vesera said.
A court decision released Thursday limited the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to regulate emissions from existing power plants.
"Unregulating power plant emissions will increase asthma, lung cancer, and other diseases associated with poor air quality. In many places, these effects are already terrible. It can be the most serious in a contaminated area, "Vesera said.
Environmental lawyers digested theSupreme Court rulingon the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Environmental Protection Agency We are deciding how we can deal with future climate changes.
"This may be about as bad in limiting EPA regulators," said Richard Revesz, an environmental law expert at NYU's Faculty of Law. Authority to regulate the power sector — but not other sectors of the economy, such as transportation and industrial emissions. ”
What action does the EPA take within its ruling? He said he would consider what could be done.
"For example, we may consider carbon capture and sequestration to see if the costs are reasonable," Revez told CNN.
Carbon capture and isolation This is where carbon is scraped from power plant emissions before it enters the atmosphere. This is an expensive technology and scientists warn that it is not a silver bullet.
"One of the things EPA can't do is wha. The clean power plan was."
The Clean Power Plan was a law of the Obama era that set goals for each state to limit carbon emissions and let those states decide how to achieve those goals. rice field.
As Supreme Court Secretary John Roberts wrote in a conservative majority opinion, it is "wise" to limit carbon dioxide emissions at a level that forces a nationwide transition from coal use. "It may not be, but it is plausible that Congress has empowered the EPA to adopt such a regulatory scheme on its own."
Six days after President Byden's inauguration, the White House advises Dana Remus calls Ketangi Brown Jackson and is a judge. See if he is interested in a new job. She is to replace Merrick Garland in a powerful Federal Court of Appeals.
The new administration is poised to prioritize judicial vacancies and plans to push forward with slate candidates sending messages about how the president views the court. Although Stella's qualification was essential, Byden also wanted a candidate to bring fresh professional and demographic diversity to the national bench dominated by white men. He sought, for example, a candidate who worked as a public advocate or citizenship lawyer.
Jackson — then working in the Federal Court of Justice in Washington, DC — was in full compliance with the bill. She had a glittering resume, including a Harvard degree and a federal clerk, but her living experience was rooted in public affairs.
The imminent future is justice Stephen Breyermay retire from the Supreme Court, the Commonwealth of Washington. The Court of Appeals has become a foothold for candidates for the High Court.
Byden promised to make history by appointing a black woman to the Supreme Court. Such a historic move will highlight a group of potential female candidates who have broken barriers to reach the top of legal affairs. Jackson, an African-American and former Breyer clerk, will probably be the top candidate for the seat. Her Court of Appeals post will help her further season and raise her profile.
When asked about the race at a post confirmation hearing at last year's appeal court, Jackson replied cautiously. She said she doesn't think her race plays a role like a judge in her past or future, but her professional background, especially as a judge in a court of justice, is her. She thought it would bring value.
"I experienced life differently than some of my colleagues, probably because of who I am. It may be worth it," she said. "If I'm confirmed by the Circuit, I hope it's worth it.Last June, the Senate confirmed Jackson to its post with 53-44 votes
Now, 51-year-old Jackson is the Supreme Court's Breyer.on behalf of, will retire at noon ET today.
"The bench of a well-qualified black female lawyer is very deep," said Elizabeth Weidra, director of the Liberal Center for Constitutional Liability. But she said Jackson brings more than just a prominent judicial record.
She "understands how law affects people based on both her professional experience and her living experience, and to equal justice. We have a strong commitment to this, "said Weilla.
She has served as an assistant federal public advocate, a member of the US Sentence Commission, a lawyer of private practice, and two prestigious federal courts.
She follows in the footsteps of those who took the seats of the judges they worked for, including Judge John Roberts, Judge Neil Gorsuch, and Judge Brett Kabanau.
Jackson is Bruce M., a federal judge in Massachusetts. After she served as Judge Celia's clerk from 1997 to 1998, she served as a clerk for Breyer during her 1999 term.
At a 2017 event hosted by the Liberal American Constitutional Society, she "witnesses the work of his illustrious legal spirit" to work for Breyer, a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. I called it. She also joked about how justice would work on a bicycle and appear in his majestic room wearing a "full bike regalia".
Jackson often talks about his legal expertise when talking to the audience, but he also talks about diversity and the balance between work and life.
In a 2017 speech at the University of Georgia Faculty of Law, she looks back on her journey as a mother and judge, and how difficult it is for her mother to serve in a large law firm. I emphasized. Occasionally done to support her family.
She said she had a long time and had little control over her schedule. This is because "always inconsistent with the needs of her child and family." She also emphasizes the trap of starting a career in law and shows that colored lawyers (both male and female) make up only 8% of equity partners in law firms nationwide. Pointed out the study.
Read about her personal recordHere
White House Spokesperson Calls BestWest Virginia vs. EPACourt Decision "Another Catastrophic Decision from the Court Aiming to Retreat Our Country" ".
Read the full statement from White House officials:
"This is a court aimed at retreating our country. Another catastrophic decision from. The court's decision risks keeping our air clean and impairing our ability to combat climate change, but President Byden protects the health of the public. , We do not forgive the use of authorities under the law to tackle the crisis of climate change. Our lawyers carefully study the decisions and find ways to move forward under federal law. At the same time, Congress must also act to accelerate America's path to a future of clean, healthy and safe energy. "
Thursday'sSupreme Court to end the controversial Gave a green light to President Byden.Immigration policy to "stay in Mexico" under the Trump administration
Since the inauguration of the administration, Byden has detained certain non-Mexico citizens who have entered the United States. Instead of releasing it to the United States, it tried to discontinue its policy of sending it back to Mexico. Their immigration procedure was carried out.
The decision is 5-4, stating that immigration law gives the federal government the discretion to terminate the program. This is officially known as the Immigration Protection Protocol.
Here's what you need to know about the Supreme Court's decision and the immigration policy that allows the termination of Byden:
- This program was first implemented in 2019 under the then president. Donald Trump.
- Biden campaigned to end this policy, stating that it "contrary to everything we support as a country of immigrants." "This policy has been criticized by immigrant advocates, claiming to expose asylum seekers with inhumane and credible claims to the dangerous and filthy situation of Mexico.
- Other administrations before Trump did not accept such an approach to inhumanity.-Mexico asylum seekers demanded that they stay in Mexico during immigration court proceedings in the United States.
- Byden has been working to cross more and more borders in the course of its administration in the midst of large-scale migration in the west. Hemisphere. Since October, border authorities have been 100 along the US-Mexico border. I have encountered immigrants more than 10,000 times, many of which have been rejected under different Pandemic Emergency Regulations, but the Department of Land Security (DHS) has stated that the policy of "staying in Mexico" has high labor costs. Yes, it does not use resources effectively.
- Byden first tried to interrupt the program. In 2021, he urged a lawsuit in the Red State. In June, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas issued a memo to officially end the policy, but a federal judge in Texas blocked the move in August. A few days later, the Supreme Court refused to put the ruling on hold during the appeal and, in effect, demanded that Byden revive "staying in Mexico."
- The policy was resumed last December. Since then, more than 5,000 immigrants have been returned to Mexico under this program, according to the International Immigration Organization. Nicaragua, Cuba, Colombia and Venezuela are one of the registered nationalities in the program.
Thursday's Supreme Court sent three abortion-related cases back to lower courts and was reconsidered under a new judicial decision ending federal protection of the procedure.
This move wasn't a surprise last week,Dobbsv. It reflects the dramatically changing legal situation surrounding abortion after the new Supreme Court ruling announced at JacksonWomen's Health. States that have asked the Supreme Court to review court orders that block their restrictive abortion law will soon be allowed to implement those measures.
The court invalidates the second amendment of the termthat invalidates the New York Act, which limits where people can carry hidden weapons in public. Decided that they also sent some cases in which they were sitting to the lower court for further deliberation.
The lower court reviewed Judge Clarence Thomas's opinion in the New York litigation that changed the way judges analyze gun law, and decided on a previously decided dispute . Reconsider.
The two abortion cases sent to the lower court are measures that the state has passed the ban on abortion, which was sought only because the fetus was diagnosed with a specific genetic abnormality. It was related to . After Dobbs' ruling last week, Arkansas, one of thestates, has banned abortion altogether.
In Arizona, another state trying to revive the ban on abortion sought due to genetic abnormalities, State Attorney General Mark Brunovich, criminalized abortion in 1901. I vowed to revive the law. procedure.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court said on Friday that the court order to suspend the law was lifted in the case of genetic anomalies in Arizona.
The third misconduct case sent back to the lower court was about the notification law of parents in Indiana. Like Arizona, abortion is legal in Indiana, but state Republican leaders plan to reconvene Congress later this summer to consider additional anti-abortion measures.
Due to a lower court decision citing the now abolished Supreme Court decision in support of the right to abortion, Indiana was unable to enforce 2017 law. Under this law, minors who have successfully obtained permission from a judge are notified of their parents before they obtain an abortion.