On June 25, 2026, Dahlia Lithwick, a prominent lawyer and journalist, appeared on MSNBC's 'Deadline: White House' and described some liberal Supreme Court justices as being 'incandescently angry' over recent majority opinions.

According to Lithwick, these decisions demonstrate a pattern of the conservative majority 'twisting itself into pretzels' to favor the Trump administration, often by downplaying or ignoring statements made by Donald Trump himself.

She highlighted cases including one protecting chemical giant Monsanto from lawsuits related to cancer-causing products and another ending Temporary Protected Status for Haitian immigrants.

Lithwick pointed to Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion, which she said dismissed key evidence, forcing Justice Elena Kagan to detail Trump's statements in her dissent to document the administration's intent.This approach, she argued, represents significant 'gaslighting' by the Court.The expert referenced prior immigration cases where the majority similarly disregarded presidential rhetoric when assessing policy intent.These latest rulings have intensified concerns among liberal justices about the Court's impartiality and transparency.

The article underscores ongoing debates about the Supreme Court's role and perceived alignment with executive priorities under the current administration.

Lithwick's comments reflect broader discussions on judicial legitimacy and the influence of political considerations in high-stakes legal decisions affecting public health, immigration policy, and corporate accountability.