INTERNACIONAL
Supreme Court flare ups grab headlines as justices feel the heat
Tensions on the Supreme Court have flared this term as justices have clashed with each other and with lawyers at oral arguments amid a wave of Trump-era emergency appeals.
These exchanges at any other forum would hardly even raise an eyebrow. But at the Supreme Court, where decorum and respect are bedrock principles and underpin even the most casual cross-talk between justices, these recent clashes are significant.
After one particularly acrimonious exchange, several longtime Supreme Court watchers noted that the behavior displayed was unlike anything they’d seen in «decades» of covering the high court.
Here are two high-profile Supreme Court spats that have made headlines in recent weeks.
100 DAYS OF INJUNCTIONS, TRIALS AND ‘TEFLON DON’: TRUMP SECOND TERM MEETS ITS BIGGEST TESTS IN COURT
Supreme Court Justices, from left, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Chief Justice John Roberts, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor attend the 60th inaugural ceremony in 2025. (Ricky Carioti /Washington Post via Getty Images)
Mahmoud v. Taylor
Last month, Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor quarreled briefly during oral arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor, a case focused on LGBTQ-related books in elementary schools and whether parents with religious objections can «opt out» children being read such material.
The exhange occurred when Sotomayor asked Mahmoud attorney Eric Baxter about a book titled «Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,» a story that invoked a same-sex relationship. Sotomayor asked Baxter whether exposure to same-sex relationships in children’s books like the one in question should be considered «coercion.»
Baxter began responding when Alito chimed in.
«I’ve read that book as well as a lot of these other books,» Alito said. «Do you think it’s fair to say that all that is done in ‘Uncle Bobby’s Wedding’ is to expose children to the fact that there are men who marry other men?»
After Baxter objected, Alito noted that the book in question «has a clear message» but one that some individuals with «traditional religious beliefs don’t agree with.»
Sotomayor jumped in partway through Alito’s objection, «What a minute, the reservation is – «
«Can I finish?» Alito said to Sotomayor in a rare moment of frustration.
He continued, «It has a clear moral message, and it may be a good message. It’s just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with.»
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ASKS SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW EL SALVADOR DEPORTATION FLIGHT CASE
From left, Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagen, Neil Gorsuch, John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
«There is a growing heat to the exchanges between the justices,» Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley observed on social media after the exchange.
A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools
The Sotomayor-Alito spat made some court-watchers uncomfortable. But it paled in comparison to the heated, tense exchange that played out just one week later between Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and Lisa Blatt, a litigator from the firm Williams & Connolly.
The exchange took place during oral arguments in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, a case about whether school districts can be held liable for discriminating against students with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Gorsuch scolded Blatt, an experienced Supreme Court litigator who was representing the public schools in the case, after she accused the other side of «lying.»
What played out was a remarkably heated exchange, if only by Supreme Court standards. Several court observers noted that they had never seen Gorsuch so angry, and others remarked they had never seen counsel accuse the other side of «lying.»
Then-Supreme Court Justice nominee Neil Gorsuch meets with Senate Judiciary Committee member Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., on Capitol Hill. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite/File)
«You believe that Mr. Martinez and the Solicitor General are lying? Is that your accusation?» Gorsuch asked Blatt, who fired back, «Yes, absolutely.»
Counsel «should be more careful with their words,» Gorsuch told Blatt in an early tone of warning.
«OK, well, they should be more careful in mischaracterizing a position by an experienced advocate of the Supreme Court, with all due respect,» Blatt responded.
Several minutes later, Gorsuch referenced the lying accusation again, «Ms. Blatt, I confess I’m still troubled by your suggestion that your friends on the other side have lied.»
«I’d ask you to reconsider that phrase,» he said. «You can accuse people of being incorrect, but lying, lying is another matter.»
He then began to read through quotations that she had entered before the court, before she interrupted again.
«I’m not finished,» Gorsuch told Blatt, raising his voice.
«Fine,» she responded.
Shortly after, Gorsuch asked Blatt to withdraw her earlier remarks that accused the other side of lying.
«Withdraw your accusation, Ms. Blatt,» Gorsuch said.
«Fine, I withdraw,» she shot back.
Plaintiffs said in rebuttal that they would not dignify the name-calling.
Supreme Court (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)
The exchange sparked some buzz online, including from an experienced appeals court litigator, Raffi Melkonian, who wrote on social media, «I’ve never heard Justice Gorsuch so angry.»
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
«Both of those moments literally stopped me in my tracks,» said Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center. «You might want to listen somewhere where you can cringe in peace.»
Mark Joseph Stern, a court reporter for Slate, described the exchange as «extremely tense» and described Blatt’s behavior as «indignant and unrepentant.»
Supreme Court,Federal Courts,Donald Trump,Judiciary,Politics
INTERNACIONAL
Portland mayor demands ICE leave city after federal agents use tear gas on protesters ‘Sickening decisions’
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
The mayor of Portland, Oregon, is calling on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to leave his city after federal agents deployed tear gas at a crowd of demonstrators, including young children, outside an ICE facility over the weekend.
Mayor Keith Wilson characterized the protests on Saturday as peaceful, as federal agents reportedly used tear gas, pepper balls, flash-bang grenades and rubber bullets against the anti-ICE demonstrators.
Wilson urged ICE agents to resign and for the agency to leave Portland, denouncing their «use of violence» and the «trampling of the Constitution.»
«Today, federal forces deployed heavy waves of chemical munitions, impacting a peaceful daytime protest where the vast majority of those present violated no laws, made no threat, and posed no danger to federal forces,» he said in a statement on Saturday.
CHICAGO MAYOR BRANDON JOHNSON PUTS ICE ‘ON NOTICE’ WITH EXECUTIVE ORDER SEEKING PROSECUTION OF AGENTS
Mayor Keith Wilson characterized the protests in his city as peaceful, as he called for ICE to leave. (Ali Gradischer/Getty Images)
«To those who continue to work for ICE: Resign. To those who control this facility: Leave. Through your use of violence and the trampling of the Constitution, you have lost all legitimacy and replaced it with shame. To those who continue to make these sickening decisions, go home, look in a mirror, and ask yourselves why you have gassed children. Ask yourselves why you continue to work for an agency responsible for murders on American streets. No one is forcing you to lie to yourself, even as your bosses continue to lie to the American people,» the mayor continued.
The mayor added that this nation «will never accept a federal presence where agents wield deadly force against the very people they are sworn to serve.»
«I share the impatience with those who demand we use every legal tool at our disposal to push back against this inexcusable, unconscionable, and unacceptable violence against our community,» Wilson said. «I share the need to act. Actions that can withstand the scrutiny of the justice system take time – and we cannot afford to lose this fight.»
CBP/BORDER PATROL AGENTS PLACED ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE AFTER DEADLY CONFRONTATION WITH ALEX PRETTI
Federal agents deployed tear gas at a crowd of demonstrators, including young children, outside an ICE facility in Portland. (Victor J. Blue/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Portland officials are working to operationalize an ordinance, which went into effect last month, that imposes a fee on detention facilities that use chemical agents, the mayor said.
«As we prepare to put that law into action, we are also documenting today’s events and preserving evidence. The federal government must, and will, be held accountable,» he wrote.
«Portland will continue to stand firmly with our immigrant neighbors, who deserve safety, dignity, and the full protection of the communities they help build,» he continued. «We are also proud of the Portlanders who showed up today in peaceful solidarity, demonstrating the strength and clarity of those shared values in the face of federal overreach.»
This comes amid national unrest and bipartisan scrutiny of immigration enforcement tactics following two killings of U.S. citizens by federal immigration agents last month in Minneapolis.
The Trump administration has faced bipartisan scrutiny over its immigration enforcement tactics following two killings of U.S. citizens by federal immigration agents in Minneapolis. (Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post via Getty Images)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Renee Nicole Good was shot and killed by ICE agent Jonathan Ross on Jan. 7 in Minneapolis, and Alex Pretti was fatally shot on Jan. 24 by Border Patrol agent Jesus Ochoa and Customs and Border Protection officer Raymundo Gutierrez while he was recording immigration enforcement operations in the same city.
Pretti, an ICU nurse, appeared to be attempting to assist a woman agents had knocked down when he was sprayed with an irritant, pushed to the ground and beaten, according to video and witness accounts. An agent was later seen pulling Pretti’s lawfully owned firearm from his waistband before other agents fired several shots, killing him.
portland,oregon,us,donald trump,homeland security,kristi noem,us protests
INTERNACIONAL
“As Nasty As They Wanna Be”: qué hay detrás del álbum más censurado en la historia del rap
En 1990, la industria musical de Estados Unidos vivió un hecho inédito: por primera vez, un álbum fue declarado “legalmente obsceno”. El protagonista de este episodio fue 2 Live Crew, un grupo de rap originario de Miami, cuyo tercer disco, As Nasty As They Wanna Be, no solo desató controversia por su contenido, sino que también reconfiguró los límites entre arte, moral y legalidad.
Formado en la década de los 80, 2 Live Crew se caracterizaba por sus letras explícitas, ritmos acelerados y una actitud desafiante que rompía con los códigos de la época. El grupo, liderado por Luther Campbell (conocido como Luke Skyywalker), ya era un referente del subgénero Miami bass, pero no fue hasta el lanzamiento de As Nasty As They Wanna Be, el 7 de febrero de 1989, que se convirtieron en un fenómeno nacional.
El disco, repleto de referencias sexuales y lenguaje explícito, fue el mayor éxito comercial de la banda y obtuvo la certificación de platino de la Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).
La polémica que rodeó el álbum terminó de definir su lugar en la historia. “Con letras explícitas, ritmos provocadores y una actitud desfachatada, 2 Live Crew se metió directo en el ojo de la tormenta cultural”, señaló Indie Hoy.
La llegada al mercado de As Nasty As They Wanna Be coincidió con una creciente preocupación social e institucional por el contenido de la música popular, en especial el rap, que para muchos sectores conservadores representaba una amenaza para los valores tradicionales.
La controversia alcanzó su punto máximo en 1990, cuando un tribunal del distrito de Florida declaró a As Nasty As They Wanna Be como “legalmente obsceno”, un fallo sin precedentes en la historia de la música estadounidense. El disco, que ya incluía el clásico sello de advertencia parental, pasó a ser el primer álbum en recibir tal calificación jurídica.
Según el fallo, el contenido de las canciones era tan explícito que excedía los límites de la libertad artística y podía ser considerado un delito.
Dos días después de la sentencia, un vendedor de discos de Florida fue arrestado por vender una copia del álbum a un policía encubierto. “La detención convirtió a 2 Live Crew en leyenda. No por romper récords de ventas, sino por entrar a los libros de historia como los primeros músicos en ser procesados por el contenido lírico de su obra”, destacó Indie Hoy.
El impacto del proceso judicial fue inmediato. Figuras públicas, como David Bowie, manifestaron su apoyo a la libertad de expresión artística. Incluso académicos de renombre, como Henry Louis Gates Jr., testificaron a favor del grupo durante el juicio.
Este episodio no solo consolidó la fama de 2 Live Crew, sino que también abrió un debate sobre el papel del Estado frente a las expresiones culturales consideradas ofensivas o disruptivas.
El juicio contra 2 Live Crew no solo marcó un antes y un después en la industria del rap, sino que también sentó un precedente legal de alcance duradero. El disco, que representó el final de la relación del grupo con el sello Skyywalker Records —renombrado luego como Luke Records tras una demanda de George Lucas por el uso del nombre—, pasó a ser un símbolo de la lucha por la libertad artística en Estados Unidos.
La controversia en torno a As Nasty As They Wanna Be se inscribió en una larga tradición de enfrentamientos entre músicos y el sistema judicial. Casos como el arresto de Jim Morrison en 1969 en Miami por “exposición indecente”, el hostigamiento sufrido por Billie Holiday por interpretar “Strange Fruit” o la persecución política contra Fela Kuti en Nigeria por sus letras contestatarias muestran que el arte musical ha sido históricamente terreno de disputa y resistencia.
A pesar de la censura inicial y los problemas legales, el álbum de 2 Live Crew resistió el paso del tiempo como un recordatorio de los riesgos y desafíos que implica empujar los límites del discurso público. “Más allá del debate sobre el tono de sus letras, lo cierto es que su caso marcó un antes y un después en la relación entre música y legalidad”, concluyó Indie Hoy.
As Nasty As They Wanna Be no solo fue un éxito comercial, sino que se transformó en un punto de inflexión en la discusión sobre los límites de la libertad artística y la intervención estatal.
INTERNACIONAL
Quién es Laura Fernández, la Bukele de Costa Rica que arrasó en las elecciones y será la próxima presidenta
La “heredera” de Rodrigo Chaves
Atacar la inseguridad y el narcotráfico, el principal objetivo
Milei y Sturzenegger defendieron la política económica del Gobierno: “Éramos tan infelices y no lo sabíamos”
Cuánto cobran los caseros en febrero 2026
Un amigo de Martín Demichelis rompió el silencio y apuntó contra Evangelina Anderson: “Alguien distorsiona la…”
Canales para ver el Barracas Central vs. Deportivo Riestra por el Torneo Apertura
Con las reformas laboral y penal en el centro del debate, comienzan las sesiones extraordinarias en el Congreso
Portland mayor demands ICE leave city after federal agents use tear gas on protesters ‘Sickening decisions’
La escandalosa prohibición de María Susini: por qué no quiere que Facundo Arana se acerque a sus hijos
A qué hora puede llover hoy en CABA, según el Servicio Meteorológico Nacional
Julieta Díaz contó por qué no funcionó su noviazgo con Luciano Castro en medio de la separación con Griselda Siciliani
Maximo Kirchner propuso que Axel Kicillof presida el PJ Bonaerense
CLIMA NOTICIAS3 días agoA qué hora puede llover hoy en CABA, según el Servicio Meteorológico Nacional
- CHIMENTOS3 días ago
Julieta Díaz contó por qué no funcionó su noviazgo con Luciano Castro en medio de la separación con Griselda Siciliani
- POLITICA3 días ago
El New York Times asegura que la Argentina podría firmar un acuerdo con EE.UU. para recibir deportados
