9-0, 9-0, 9-0

In three significant cases before the Supreme Court this term — Hosanna-Tabor Church v. EEOC on religious liberty, U.S. v. Jones on warrantless GPS search, and Sackett v. EPA on rights to challenge regulatory agency actions — the justices have been unanimous in rejecting the Obama Administration’s position. This Department of Justice, it seems, keeps asserting a vision of virtually unfettered executive-branch power that even its own appointees on the Court find unpersuasive. “If the government loses in the health-care or immigration cases,” writes my Cato Institute colleague Ilya Shapiro, “it won’t be because its lawyers had a bad day in court or because the justices ruled based on their political preferences. It will be because the Obama administration continues to make legal arguments that don’t pass the smell test.” [WSJ]


  • ‘sfunny, I thought 9-9-9 referred to something else entirely.

    Oh, well . . .

  • I don’t think it’s fair to pin the government’s litigating position on Jones as an example of Obama administration craziness. That litigating position was fully developed in the Bush administration, in cases around the country.