Trump v. Cook · ¶56
Even so, JUSTICE THOMAS insists, we cannot presume that Congress intended to incorporate Reagan and Shurtleff ’s rule in the absence of some broader “judicial consensus.” Post, at 18. We are not sure what more JUSTICE THOMAS wants. It is true, of course, that we have required “broad and unquestioned” “consensus” in the Courts of Appeals before presuming that Congress intended to incorporate into new legislation the lower courts’ interpretation of a particular word or phrase. Jama v. Immigra tion and Customs Enforcement, 543 U. S. 335, 349 (2005). (The one case cited by JUSTICE THOMAS on this point, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 607 U. S. 229 (2026), stands for just that proposition. See id., at 252–253.) We have never said the same, however, about our own cases, of which Congress presumptively is aware. See, e.g., Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas, 596 U. S. 685, 700–701 (2022)…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.