judicial opinions

photo of U.S. Capitol Building  

Updates & changes ongoing ....

---- Although this site is https-secure, we cannot guarantee that it or any provided links are safe; be sure your antivirus and other security systems are up to date.

Also see:
Judges; Supreme Court;

Jump to:    2018;   2019;   2020;

Undated: A judicial opinion is a form of legal opinion written by a judge or a judicial panel in the course of resolving a legal dispute, providing the decision reached to resolve the dispute, and usually indicating the facts which led to the dispute and an analysis of the law used to arrive at the decision.

-- 2018 --

Back to top

May 6: Trump's judges are flexing their muscles, from civil rights to campaign spending

The men and women President Trump has elevated to federal judgeships across the nation are having an impact on issues ranging from civil rights and campaign spending to public prayer and the death penalty.

June 5: In His Own Words: The President's Attacks on the Courts

Donald Trump has displayed a troubling pattern of attacking judges and the courts for rulings he disagrees with.

June 26: Trump v. Hawaii, No. 17-965, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case involving Presidential Proclamation 9645 signed by President Donald Trump, which restricted travel in the United States by people from several nations, or by refugees without valid travel documents. Hawaii and several other states and groups challenged the Proclamation (and two predecessor executive orders also issued by Trump) on statutory and constitutional grounds; citing a variety of statements by Trump and administration officials, they argued that the proclamation and its predecessor orders were motivated by anti-Muslim animus.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._Hawaii :

July 26: Legal Opinions Or Political Commentary? A New Judge Exemplifies The Trump Era

Less than a year into a lifetime appointment, a 45-year-old federal appeals court judge named James Ho may embody President Trump's most enduring legacy.

Ho has shaken up the staid world of appellate law by deploying aggressive rhetoric in cases involving guns, abortion rights and campaign finance regulations.

Today's government "would be unrecognizable to our Founders," he has written. He condemned what he called "the moral tragedy of abortion." And he's bemoaned that the Second Amendment appears to be considered a "second class right."

Critics say Ho is writing op-ed columns, not legal opinions. Friends and former colleagues said he's an intellectual engaging with ideas. And that he's just getting started.


In 1995, the authors of a law review article examining “feminist judging” focused on the existing social science data concerning women judges and compared the voting records and opinions of the only female Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court: Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O’Connor.1 Based on this review, the authors concluded that appointing more women as judges would make little difference to judicial outcomes or processes.2 The authors accused those who advocated for more women on the bench of having a hidden feminist agenda3 and bluntly concluded that “[b]y any measure, feminist judges fit very uneasily in most conceptions of the proper role of the judicial system.”4

Back to top

November 8:
In an action challenging the Department of Homeland Security’s rescission of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), the panel affirmed the district court’s grant of preliminary injunctive relief, and affirmed in part the district court’s partial grant and partial denial of the government’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

December 19: Federal judge strikes down Trump asylum rules for domestic and gang violence victims

In a ruling Wednesday, Judge Emmet Sullivan struck down large portions of Justice Department policies that made it harder for immigrants to claim asylum.

December 27: “Trump’s judges have ruled in favor of police, prison guards and a male student seeking the right to face his accuser in a sexual assault case, as well as against a naturalized citizen fighting his loss of citizenship,” USA Today’s Richard Wolf writes. Not all of them have acted in line with the president’s political agenda, however; at least one judge has helped preserve asylum rights for a Mexican immigrant.

Undated: U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Announcements [audio podcast]

-- 2019 --  

Back to top

-- 2020 --

Back to top

 Webpage visitor counts provided by



copyr 2018 trump-news-history.com, Minneapolis, MN