Supreme Court declines Herrera-Salazar appeal; two justices cite double jeopardy concerns

All sides report the Supreme Court declined Herrera-Salazar’s appeal and that Sotomayor and Gorsuch cited serious constitutional problems. The main difference is emphasis: the center and left stress the cross-ideological alliance, while the right often calls him an illegal immigrant and targets the prosecution.

• the left

  1 outlet

  Headline stresses that a Trump-appointed justice joined a liberal colleague and calls the government’s case absurd, presenting the cross-ideological alliance as the news.

  Trump Appointee Joins Liberal SCOTUS Colleague to BlastLoaded verb“Blast”The verb “Blast” adds drama beyond the justices’ written criticism.More neutral: criticizeDisagree with this highlight? ‘Absurd’ Case

• the center

  1 outlet

  Headlines name the two justices and their joint condemnation, quoting the constitutional absurdity phrase and presenting the statement as a rare bipartisan rebuke.

  Sotomayor, Gorsuch condemnLoaded verb“condemn”The verb “condemn” signals a moral verdict, while the justices’ statement only questioned the prosecution’s constitutionality.More neutral: criticizeDisagree with this highlight? immigrant's prosecution, citing 'constitutional absurdity'

• the right

  5 outlets

  Headlines focus on the defendant as an illegal immigrant and on the Justice Department’s prosecution, with far-right outlets stressing the unusual alliance and the deportation.

  Sotomayor, Gorsuch blastLoaded verb“blast”Blast conveys a harsher attack than the justices’ statement, which said the case raised serious constitutional problems.More neutral: criticizeDisagree with this highlight? illegal immigrant’s prosecution as ‘constitutional absurdity’

The left is Far Left and Left together. The right is Right and Far Right together. Every outlet keeps its own five-point rating.