A few of our stories and columns are now in front of the paywall. We at The Chief-Leader remain committed to independent reporting on labor and civil service. It's been our mission since 1897. You can have a hand in ensuring that our reporting remains relevant in the decades to come. Consider supporting The Chief, which you can do for as little as $3.20 a month.
To the editor:
Whether it's the New York State Court of Appeals or the U.S. Supreme Court, there is a lack of logic in their decisions.
In an unanimous ruling, the State Court of Appeals agreed that New York City retirees were told that their retirement health package would include Medicare as well as supplementary insurance at the time they were hired. But then they claim that nothing the retirees were told meant that they would get this coverage for life.
Now none of the lower courts, which all ruled in favor of the retirees, were willing to adopt such twisted thinking. Are the members of the high court practicing justice or con artist techniques?
On the federal level, the six Republican-president-nominated Supreme Court justices ruled that lower courts could not issue injunctions against a president's executive orders. This is in a case where President Donald Trump issued an executive order to eliminate birthright citizenship. This order is a direct contradiction of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. So while Trump and these six justices swore to uphold the constitution, they have made themselves guilty of perjury.
It is too bad we don't have a truly worthwhile Congress or state legislature. If we did, many judges would be removed for making decisions that are legally, logically and morally indefensible.
Richard Warren
2 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
0000
The Facts only the Facts
The Supreme Court ruling on Friday, by a vote of 6 to 3, could allow President Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship to take effect in some parts of the country, as it stands now.
The trump administration may start enforcing Mr. Trump’s birthright citizenship order in 28 states that have not challenged it, unless individuals bring their lawsuits.
The ruling will not take effect for 30 days. Plaintiffs and lower-court judges may expand the use of class-action lawsuits in a different way .
This option, Justice Amy Barrett wrote in the majority opinion, would be proper so long as they obey procedural limits for class-action cases.
Justice Jackson said: “Everyone, from the president down, is bound by law.” By duty and nature, federal courts determine what the law is (if there is a genuine dispute) and require those subject to the law to conform their behavior to what the law requires. This is the essence of the rule of law.”
However, Justice Barrett accused her of forgetting that courts, too, must obey legal limits.
"Justice Jackson decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary, Justice Barrett wrote. No one disputes that the executive must follow the law. However, the judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation — in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the judiciary from doing so.”
Sources
New York Times
Sunday, June 29, 2025
Title: Legal Checks On President Fade Further
Corrections
Arts and Leisure
An article this weekend on Page 12 about Brazilian artist Luana Vitra includes outdated information. He’lio Menezes is no longer the director of the Museu Afro Brasil in São Paulo.
Errors are corrected during the press run whenever possible, so some errors noted here may not have appeared in all editions.
Contact the newsroom
To contact the newsroom regarding correction requests, please email corrections@nytimes.com.
Friday, July 4 Report this
krell1349
Trump lucked out here. Let's see how the Supreme Court really rules on birthright citizenship which is enshrined in the Constitution when that happens. That will be the true test of the Supreme Court's impartiality. It should ne 9 to 0 in favor of the Constitution.
Saturday, July 5 Report this