Good morning and Happy Halloween. Today, we’re taking you to a few places. First, we’ll go inside the Supreme Court, where the relationship between the few liberal justices is straining. Then, we look at Jamaica, where the damage from Hurricane Melissa is becoming clearer. And finally, in Sudan, we assess new evidence of executions. Plus, an update from Britain: The king will strip Prince Andrew of his royal title and kick him out of his house, according to a dramatic statement from Buckingham Palace. (Read it in full from the BBC.)
Legal dispute
There are only three liberal justices on the Supreme Court — and they are not on the same page. They are responding very differently to their lack of influence as conservative justices yield to President Trump and burnish his executive power. And, according to a story published today, their relationship is straining. In one camp, Justice Elena Kagan believes in building consensus and picking off conservative votes to avoid the most extreme rulings. In another, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the court’s newest member, is more confrontational. Her opinions speak more to the public — and to history — than to her conservative peers, whom she sees as beyond persuasion. Jodi Kantor has spent months reporting on their relationship. I asked her about her scoop, which published today. Adam: The tension you describe mimics a dynamic on the left generally. It is disorganized, demoralized, factional. One side favors pragmatism — say, running pro-life Democrats to help the party retake the House. The other says anything short of confrontation will normalize unlawful or corrupt policies. It’s fascinating to know this tension exists even on the Supreme Court. Jodi: Yes, and the setting intensifies it. This is a world of formality and decorum. Even writing “I dissent” instead of “I respectfully dissent” is considered a bold move. And Jackson has gone far beyond that. Kagan and Jackson are both Harvard-trained Democratic appointees. Yet they’re very different jurists. Supreme Court justices have a rule that they’re not supposed to insult their colleagues or the institution. It’s fine to express strong legal disagreement but nothing accusatory about other justices. Judges are supposed to be examples of stability, not figures who thwack each other over their disagreements. But that puts the liberal justices in a predicament: They’re outnumbered, three to six, and they are very worried about the court’s recent decisions. How can they vent their alarm? Justice Kagan, appointed in 2010 to be a diplomat and strategist, is capable of punching hard, but she shows her frustration only in flashes. When the court rejected President Biden’s student loan cancellations in 2023, she deleted the most heated material from her dissent, I learned in my reporting. Justice Jackson aims directly at the right side of the court, accusing them of being clueless about racism, favoring “moneyed interests” and enabling “our collective demise.” This has led to tension — between Jackson and the two senior liberals, and between Jackson and the rest of the court. In which camp does Justice Sonia Sotomayor fall? She is now the senior liberal, assigning dissents and keeping many of the most important ones for herself. In those, Sotomayor disagrees forcefully, but she also values her long relationships at the court, people close to her say, and mostly keeps her focus on the legal judgments. The customary move would be for Jackson, the junior justice, to sign on and say no more. But sometimes she adds her own thoughts, going beyond the senior justice. “Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more,” she wrote earlier this spring when the court limited the power of federal judges to curtail Trump’s power. Sotomayor and Kagan worry that their newer colleague’s candor and propensity to add her own dissents have diluted the group’s impact.
It’s frustrating to be in the minority. But as the baby justice, Jackson endures extra humiliations and limits. By tradition, the junior justice serves on the cafeteria committee and answers the door to the justices’ private conference room in case of a knock. The chief justice has referred to these as hazing rituals. More important: In those meetings, in which justices speak in order of seniority, she talks last. So unless there’s a tie, it’s tough for her to have any influence. People close to her say this is part of why she aims to speak more directly to the public. We’re not used to reading stories like this from inside the court. The Supreme Court is secretive. But in journalism, scrutinizing the powerful is Job No. 1. In the past three years, The Times has worked to understand more about these singular jobs, the people who fill them, how power flows inside the marble walls, and — as in this article — what kinds of dilemmas the justices face. Anyone who has tips can reach me at nytimes.com/tips. Learn more about how Kagan uses her diplomacy — and why Jackson took a different approach.
As the clouds of Hurricane Melissa cleared and power slowly returned, Jamaica got a clearer look at the damage the storm had caused. Floodwaters gouged asphalt roads. Roaring winds sheared the roof off an elementary school and sent beams splintering onto the desks below. St. Elizabeth, where the hurricane made landfall, appears to be ground zero of the disaster. A courthouse, library, churches and other historic buildings were reduced to rubble. “The area is totally flat,” the local police superintendent said. Officials have not announced a death toll from the storm because they have not yet confirmed the numbers, said Desmond McKenzie, who is leading the emergency response. But in Haiti, officials said at least 30 people died. Now Jamaica faces a long, daunting road to recovery. Britain, France and several of Jamaica’s Caribbean neighbors have pledged assistance.
National Security
Food Stamps
More on Politics
Sudan
Other Big Stories
Are Halloween decorations getting scarier? For some, simple witches and ghouls don’t cut it anymore. Now you can find front-lawn displays featuring dismembered bodies, decapitated heads and the most creeptastic clowns. Skeletons are taller — and shriek when you pass by. Zombies gesticulate and drool flesh. It’s driving a Halloween spending spree. Americans are expected to drop $4.2 billion on decorations this year, up from $1.6 billion in 2019. But some say the jump-scares are getting out of hand — peeking out from stoops, looming in doorways, hanging from rafters, covering the lawn with blood. Just look at some of these unnerving specimens. Neighbors have lodged complaints. Little ones are crying. It makes you wonder what kinds of twisted impulses lurk in the American psyche. Happy Halloween! |
