The court currently has a 6-3 conservative supermajority, but both Barrett and Roberts have at times broken ranks and voted with the court’s liberal wing in rulings that have infuriated the MAGA base.

The high court handed the U.S. president a significant setback when it ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration must abide by a lower court order to unfreeze $2 billion in foreign aid.

The aid was blocked after Trump signed an executive action his first day in office ordering the funding freeze while his administration scoured U.S. spending for what Trump and his allies characterize as “waste, fraud and abuse.”

A lower court judge subsequently ordered the administration to unblock the aid in response to a lawsuit filed by nonprofit organizations in connection to the Trump administration’s freezing of foreign assistance through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the State Department.

In a 5-4 ruling on Wednesday, Barrett and Roberts joined Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson and left in place the ruling by U.S. District Judge Amir Ali.

Mike Cernovich, a longtime conservative activist and Trump supporter, amplified a video of Barrett and Trump interacting during his address to a joint session of Congress.

“She is evil, chosen solely because she checked identity politics boxes,” Cernovich wrote. “Another DEI hire. It always ends badly.”

Mike Davis, a former law clerk for Gorsuch and the former chief nominations counsel for Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, didn’t name Barrett directly but echoed Cernovich’s criticisms of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, which Trump has dismantled across the federal government.

He wrote on X: “President Trump will pick even more bold and fearless judges in his second term. Extreme vetting. No DEI. No missteps.”

  • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    20 hours ago

    I don’t think SCOTUS would dilute their own power by seating more judges if there wasn’t a Congressional Act to legally change the size of the court, which is set by federal law.

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Congress is also supposed to control the purse strings, and yet…

      These motherfuckers would create their own Supreme Court, and just go with whatever they say. Who’s going to stop them?

      • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        22 minutes ago

        I wasn’t saying our current Congress will do the right thing here. If they redefine the SCOTUS thru federal legislation then they’re legally in the right even while they’re morally bankrupt. I just don’t think the 9 justices will allow acknowledge reducing their own power on the bench if they are not legally bound to do so by Congress. Not when they seem to be ok with expanding their power on the bench (president is immune to prosecution, but only if we say so).

      • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

        I didnt say I think Congress wouldn’t do it. The SCOTUS would have no choice if Congress does it properly, albeit for the wrong reason. But we’ve already seen SCOTUS rule against Trump this term. So I don’t think they’d go along with weakening the strength of their individual vote on the bench without Congress doing it properly.