Website Segments

Bio: Writer Hailey Fichtner is a first-year political science major.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Ruth Bader Ginsburg continues to have an impact on the legal world by shaping what gender equality truly means through prominent cases such as United States v. Virginia. She has also fought for reproductive rights, equal pay, and LGBT rights, which remain major political issues today. United States v. Virginia ruled that Virginia Military Institute’s male-only admissions policy violated the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause. This case was what cemented her belief that equal protection under the law must be real, not theoretical. Before serving on the Supreme Court, she was a lawyer who broke down barriers to gender equality by establishing that gender discrimination was unconstitutional. Her litigation throughout the 1970s changed how the law viewed gender, primarily through her work as the co-founder of the Women’s Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which helped protect women from unfair treatment. As the second woman on the Supreme Court, she had a lot to prove, not only to her colleagues but also to the citizens of the United States. Given that she had many progressive ideas at the time regarding gender rights, many people disagreed with her position on the Supreme Court. Still, she made it clear that she was willing to work civilly with her Republican colleagues and not push her views onto others. Her voice helped pave the way for more women in law and government, which went along with her fight for gender equality. Ginsburg was known for her powerful dissenting opinions, including Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., in which her dissent on pay discrimination led Congress to pass the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in 2009. This allowed individuals to file claims for each discriminatory paycheck they received. After Ginsburg passed in 2020, her legacy continues to live on in the voices of people fighting for gender equality and LGBT rights.

Bio: Writer Benji Weiss is a first-year philosophy major.

AAUP v. Rubio

Typically, judicial opinions are insipid, monotonous, or even downright boring. To ensure concision, transparency, and accuracy, and to mitigate the risk of being overruled by a higher court, judges typically avoid language that could be perceived as biased or that deviates from what’s most important: facts and precedent. However, there is nothing typical about the current state of American judicial affairs, and judges are responding in unprecedented ways. As the Trump administration continues to push the limits of the Constitution, fed-up judges are responding by issuing opinions that break historic judicial norms. No opinion is more symbolic of this trend than the one issued by U.S. District Court Judge William G. Young in AAUP v. Rubio. 

The plaintiffs in AAUP v. Rubio include the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and its chapters, as well as the Middle Eastern Studies Association. The plaintiffs, represented by the Knight First Amendment Institute, sued multiple members of the Donald Trump administration, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and President Trump himself. The plaintiffs allege that the arrests, detainments, deportations, and visa revocations of students and professors engaged in pro-Palestine advocacy violate the First Amendment (United States District Court). In his opinion, finding in favor of the plaintiffs, Judge Young writes that he finds “clear and convincing evidence” that the Trump administration engaged in efforts to “chill” the speech and assembly rights of the plaintiffs (United States District Court 4, 5). 

In his opinion, Young finds that constitutional protections–specifically those granted by the First Amendment–extend to noncitizens, a significant finding in its own right (United States District Court). Since the 19th century, legal scholars have debated whether the Constitution includes noncitizens when it refers to “people” (Hayward and Vile par. 4). Young concludes that the Constitution does include noncitizens (United States District Court). But the precedent set by Young is not the focus of his opinion. Rather, what’s most notable is how Young frames his opinion and the language he uses. 

On page one of his opinion, before the title, Young includes a postcard sent to Young’s chambers that reads, “TRUMP HAS PARDONS AND TANKS…WHAT DO YOU HAVE?” (United States District Court). Already, Young is straying from the traditional standards of written opinions. Prefacing an opinion with an anonymously sent, politically charged, handwritten postcard is surely unprecedented. Even more striking is Young’s response to the postcard, in which Young directly addresses the sender of the postcard and alludes to Young’s opinion, highlighting the duty of “We the people” to the “magnificent constitution” (United States District Court 1). Young’s direct response, in his opinion, to not a party in the case, but an anonymous political commenter, is an incredible break from judicial norms. From the start, the dramatic nature of Young’s opinion is evident. As Young continues, he includes the thought that AAUP v. Rubio is perhaps the most important case to fall within his district’s jurisdiction, and a scathing line describing the Trump administration’s actions as a “full-throated assault on the First Amendment” (United States District Court 95). Young concludes his opinion by addressing the sender of the postcard, as if his entire opinion was a response letter to the postcard. Young writes, “I hope you found this helpful. Thanks for writing. It shows you care. You should” (United States District Court 161). Young’s decision to address the postcard’s sender at the beginning and end of his writing gives his opinion a dramatic, personal, and political tone that is wholly outside the norms for judicial documents. To quote Jeremy Fogel, a former federal district judge, “I don’t think I’ve seen an opinion like this from a district court in a very long time.” (Polantz par. 5)

Although Young’s opinion is highly unusual, it is not without reason. Trump’s disregard of the Constitution and the law as a whole has judges feeling particularly concerned. CNN Supreme Court analyst and Georgetown Law professor Steve Vladeck states that Young’s opinion is a “sign of the times” (Polantz par. 7). While Young’s approach certainly highlights the contemporary challenges facing American courts, the effectiveness of his method is yet to be seen. Some, like Vladeck, believe that Young may have weakened his opinion’s ability to withstand appeals. On the other hand—and probably what Young intends—Young’s piece may serve as inspiration to those who wish to challenge the current administration. 

Young’s unusual opinion both sets an important precedent for the rights of noncitizens and reflects judges’ heightened concerns about the Trump administration. If the Trump administration continues to test its constitutional bounds, vocal judges will certainly become more commonplace. Although it is untraditional and often frowned upon for judges to treat their posts as soapboxes, unusual times call for unusual measures. The effectiveness of such measures is yet to be seen. 

Hayward, Allison., Vile, R. John. “First Amendment Rights of Non-Citizens, Aliens.” Free Speech Center, 14 April 2025, https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/aliens/

Polantz, Katelyn. “Legal opinions aren’t usually exciting. This one has everyone talking.” CNN, 1 Oct. 2025,  https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/01/politics/william-young-legal-opinion-everyone-talking.

United States, District Court of Massachusetts. AAUP v. Rubio. Docket no. 25-10685, 30 September 2025. GovInfo, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mad-1_25-cv-10685/pdf/USCOURTS-mad-1_25-cv-10685-3.pdf. PDF download.