Part 1 of 2.<\/p>\n
On Friday, September 18, 2020, the Supreme Court, and the world at large, lost a legal, cultural, and feminist icon. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, lionized for her prolonged battle to promote gender equality through the legal system, died from complications from metastatic cancer of the pancreas. She was 87.<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court, where she had presided as Justice for 27 years, announced her death. Chief Justice John Roberts extolled that \u201cour nation has lost a justice of historic stature.\u201d<\/p>\n
For many liberal supporters, her legacy as a jurist is beyond reproach. As a young attorney, she ushered cases to the Supreme Court that challenged long standing, discriminatory statutes. Upon being nominated to the Court in 1993, she devoted her career to the pursuit of gender equality through a rigorous approach to the law. She would go on to author multiple landmark opinions on gender discrimination, most notably United States v. Virginia. <\/em>In her later years, she rose to stardom in the public sphere, becoming an icon to throngs of fans for her strident feminism, caustic dissents, and workout routines. They dubbed her \u201cthe Notorious RBG.\u201d<\/p>\n As a Supreme Court Justice, she also served as a crucial vote on immigration matters. The daughter of Russian immigrants, she often voiced her support for the constitutional rights of immigrants. Speaking to newly naturalized citizens at their oath ceremony in 2018, she lauded their contributions to society, claiming that \u201cwe are a Nation made strong by people like you.\u201d<\/p>\n In large part, her judicial decisions have reflected those commitments. Recently, she has sided with liberal majority opinions that have invalidated President Trump\u2019s various attacks on immigration.[1]<\/sup><\/a> In dissent, as well, she has demonstrated her general support for less-restrictive immigration policies. In 2018, she joined Justice Sonia Sotomayor\u2019s scathing dissent of the Supreme Court\u2019s decision to uphold President Trump\u2019s travel ban.[2]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n Notably, though, she has also sided with the Trump administration on some immigration matters. In 2020, in one of her final decisions, she affirmed that asylum-seekers whose claims are denied by immigration officials do not have a right to a hearing before a judge.[3]<\/sup><\/a> These decisions have drawn the ire of more liberal immigration advocates; they faulted her for her unwillingness to author more forcefully pro-immigrant decisions.<\/p>\n Taken in full, however, her legacy\u2013as a defender of the rights of all people in the United States regardless of gender, race, or immigration status\u2013remains untarnished.<\/p>\n The ramifications of her death are profound. Not only does the Court lose one of its most ardent defenders of liberal jurisprudence, her death makes way for the nomination of her replacement by the Trump administration. The vacancy has quickly been thrust into the electoral spotlight. Already, President Trump has announced his intention to fill the vacancy with all deliberate speed. Democrats of all stripes have derided the hypocrisy of this, citing Republican\u2019s unwillingness to entertain Merrick Garland, President Obama\u2019s final nominee to the Court.<\/p>\n In the second part of this two-part series, we will analyze the potential impact of another Trump-nominee joining the Court: How will this alter the legal immigration landscape? Will this decide the fate of DACA, TPS, and other Obama-era immigration measures? Is there anything we can do to stop this eventuality?<\/p>\n By Jonah A. Giese<\/em>, PNCLO<\/p>\n [1]<\/sup><\/a> https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/19pdf\/18-587_5ifl.pdf<\/p>\n