A recent article was published detailing the latest reporting on three Trump cases by the New York Times: Trump v. Anderson, Fischer v. United States, and Trump v. United States. Here are some key observations.
Firstly, the leaks regarding the Trump cases are more extensive and damaging compared to the Dobbs leak. The information includes confidential memoranda, conversations, Justice Kagan’s absence from the reporting, and Justice Alito losing the Fischer majority. These leaks reveal a systematic breach of confidentiality despite previous measures taken by Chief Justice Roberts.
Secondly, Justice Kagan’s absence in the reporting suggests a possible connection to the leaks, given her history of undermining colleagues. The article speculates that the three Trump appointees may rule against him in future election cases, similar to their actions in the tax return cases.
Thirdly, the reassignment of Fischer from Justice Alito raises questions about the circumstances surrounding this decision. Justice Alito’s diminishing influence in recent cases compared to Chief Justice Roberts highlights a shift in power dynamics within the Court.
Fourthly, the detailed reporting on Chief Justice Roberts’s clerks working on the opinion raises questions about their role in the decision-making process. The article lists the four clerks involved in the case.
Fifthly, Justice Barrett’s actions during deliberations indicate a willingness to break from her conservative colleagues and make independent decisions. She is portrayed as a learner adapting to her role on the Court.
Sixth, Justice Jackson is depicted as a strategic player in the Court, making calculated decisions in cases like Fischer and Anderson.
In conclusion, the article calls for Chief Justice Roberts to resign, citing his perceived failure as a chief justice. The author suggests that Roberts should focus on deciding cases as a judge rather than prioritizing institutional interests.
