Context:

The US Supreme Court is increasingly divided, with justices often acting in their individual interests rather than striving for consensus, especially evident in cases related to President Trump's initiatives. This division is highlighted by their separate opinions and public appearances, as well as in their writings and memoirs. The upcoming case on birthright citizenship, which may serve as a platform for individual agendas, exemplifies this fragmentation. The court is set to address procedural issues related to nationwide injunctions, which have been used to halt Trump's policies. Justices' dissents and separate opinions reveal deep ideological splits, challenging the court's ability to act with unity in pivotal constitutional matters.

Dive Deeper:

• The Supreme Court's fragmentation is evident in their handling of cases, public appearances, and separate writings, with justices increasingly pursuing individual interests over collective consensus.

• The upcoming birthright citizenship case may highlight the justices' individual agendas, as various interest groups view it as pivotal to their causes, although the court has not specified the legal questions it will address.

• A key procedural issue in the case is the use of nationwide injunctions by lower courts to block the Trump administration's policies, which the administration wants narrowed to specific parties.

• Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has shown willingness to dissent from her liberal colleagues, criticizing the administration's attacks on the judiciary and highlighting the challenges faced by judges in high-pressure cases.

• Justice Samuel Alito has expressed strong disapproval of the majority's decisions in immigration cases, condemning their actions as premature and lacking solid factual support.

• Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Jackson and Kagan, has dissented against the administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act, criticizing the erosion of the rule of law.

• Justice Amy Coney Barrett, although conservative, has occasionally sided with liberal justices, indicating a potential shift towards the center, as seen in her support for procedural deliberation in the Venezuelan-migrant case.