The Supreme Court justice wrote a blistering dissent on Feb. 20, 2026 after the Supreme Court found President Trump's tariffs are illegal. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
The judge clarified, however, that the order was not a blanket restriction on Villareal's communication with his attorneys. He said they could discuss topics other than the defendant's testimony, such as possible sentencing issues.
SUPREME COURT RULES ON TRUMP TARIFFS IN MAJOR TEST OF EXECUTIVE BRANCH POWERS
Villareal was ultimately convicted in the case, and his attorney's appealed the decision by arguing the judge's restrictions infringed on the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
The case was ultimately appealed up to the Supreme Court, which ruled against the defendant's argument. The court's majority opinion, penned by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, stated that court precedent allowed judges to restrict attorneys and their clients from discussing testimony in the middle of a trial.
Anders Hagstrom is a reporter with Fox News Digital covering national politics and major breaking news events. Send tips to Anders.Hagstrom@Fox.com, or on X: @Hagstrom_Anders.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/thomas-criticizes-supreme-court-majority-needlessly-expanding-precedent-unanimous-decision