Elon Musk attacked the courts. Now they're his best hope against Trump.
In the end, the fight between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk may see the latter turning to the same institution that he has tried to tear down over the last year in the president's name: the courts. And the truth is, even the richest man in the world deserves legal protection. That's how the Constitution and the rule of law work, despite Musk's best efforts to run over both.
Musk spent months and hundreds of millions of dollars to support Trump's campaign in 2024. He then spent the first several months of Trump's second presidency helping to cut government programs and employees and criticizing the administration's foes. One frequent target of his attacks has been the courts. He called for the impeachment of judges who resisted the administration's agenda and even tried to sway a judicial election in Wisconsin for a seat on its Supreme Court.
Last month, the Republican majority in the House (which Musk claims to have saved) passed the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act,' which would explode the deficit, cut taxes mostly for the wealthy, cut services for the poor and kill the tax break for electronic vehicles such as Teslas. Earlier this week, Musk began speaking out against the bill, calling it 'pork-filled' and a 'disgusting abomination.'
The feud became more personal Thursday, with Trump criticizing Musk in the Oval Office. As Musk continued to fire back, Trump said he will explore cutting his administration's extensive contracts with Musk's companies, including Starlink and SpaceX. 'I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it!' Trump wrote.
Musk likewise doubled down, sharing footage of Trump and Jeffrey Epstein and approving a social media post that called for Trump's impeachment. By the end of the day, Musk had gestured at conciliation, but as of Friday, the president was not in the same mood, with a senior White House aide telling NBC News that Trump was 'not interested' in a call to cool tensions.
So, where might Musk turn to stop the Trump train from running over his companies? It wasn't long ago that Musk threatened to use his wealth to fund primary challenges against any Republican who might seek to rein in Musk's activities through his so-called Department of Government Efficiency. But the leverage there relied as much on Trump's sway over the GOP base as on Musk's funds. It is certainly possible that Musk could spend enough to sway elected officials to slow down such attacks on his companies. Yet such an approach, even if successful, would take a significant amount of time, with only marginal gains in the short term.
Ironically, should the president seek to cut the federal government's ties with Musk's companies based on his criticism, it is the courts that will likely serve as the best forum in which to challenge any retribution.
Over the last month, three law firms — Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale — have all succeeded in defeating Trump's efforts to punish them for standing up to him. They have all relied, in part, on a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court from last year, NRA v. Vullo. In that case, a unanimous court found that a government official in New York could not punish the NRA and the companies with which it did business for the organization's political speech (in that case, opposing gun regulation).
Under the First Amendment, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the court, 'government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors.' One would be hard-pressed to say that what the administration is threatening to do against Musk's companies doesn't fall squarely under the prohibitions the court identified in that case.
Despite railing against the institutions that might stand in the way of his and Trump's agenda for months, Musk will now have to trust in those institutions. But that is how our First Amendment, our courts and the rule of law function; they typically protect even their fiercest critics.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
9 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Supreme Court to hear case on IQ tests and death penalty next term
The Supreme Court will hear a case next term centered on the role of multiple IQ scores in determining an Alabama murderer's eligibility for the death penalty, according to a list issued by the court late Friday. In Hamm v. Smith, the state of Alabama is arguing that Joseph Smith — who was sentenced to death for a murder in 1997 — should be executed because he has not proved that his IQ is 70 or below, as required by state law. However, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama vacated Smith's death sentence after ruling he is intellectually disabled because the score on one of his IQ tests could fall below 70 when accounting for margin of error. Smith had obtained five IQ scores that ranged from 72 to 78. The Supreme Court justices agreed to hear Hamm v. Smith to determine a limited question: 'Whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in assessing an Atkins claim,' referring to the 2002 landmark decision Atkins v. Virginia, which ruled that executing those with intellectual disabilities violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. In November, the Supreme Court issued a per curiam decision to remand the case for further consideration. In it, the justices said that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit — which had affirmed the lower court's decision to vacate Smith's death sentence — had been unclear in why it had issued that decision. In February, the state of Alabama again asked the Supreme Court to intervene, saying the Eleventh Circuit 'watered down the most objective prong of the test, overrode Alabama's definition of intellectual disability, and shattered Atkins's promise to leave meaningful discretion to the States.' 'This case was not close: Smith scored 75, 74, 72, 78, and 74 on five full-scale IQ tests. There is no way to conclude from these five numbers that Smith's true IQ is likely to be 70 or below,' the state of Alabama argued, also adding that evaluating multiple IQ scores is 'complicated' and that the Supreme Court has not specified how to do it. 'Smith could take hundreds of IQ tests, score 75 on all of them, yet his IQ still 'could be' 70, according to the panel [the Eleventh Circuit], because every test could have erred by 5 points. The panel failed to appreciate that multiple tests together can provide a more accurate estimate than each test alone,' the state argued. The Supreme Court's next term is scheduled to begin in October. The list of new cases was not expected until Monday morning, but email notifications about the list were inadvertently sent Friday evening because of a technical glitch, so the court chose to release the list of cases earlier than scheduled. In a statement that accompanied the early release, court spokeswoman Patricia McCabe said the notifications were sent prematurely because of an 'apparent software malfunction.' Justin Jouvenal contributed to this report.
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Ultimate Father's Day Gift: Give Dad Confidence with a Full Head of Hair. Thursday's Hair Solutions Offers Complimentary First Service for Dads All June!
LOS ANGELES, June 07, 2025--(BUSINESS WIRE)--This Father's Day, Thursday's Hair Solutions honors the men in our lives with more than just a card or tie. In celebration of dads everywhere, the trusted Los Angeles hair restoration salon is offering a complimentary first service for new male clients during June. At Thursday's Hair Solutions, hair loss isn't just a cosmetic issue; it's an emotional one. Losing hair can feel like losing a piece of your identity, leading to lower self-esteem and confidence. For over 22 years, the Los Angeles hair replacement salon has specialized in safe, non-surgical, customized hair replacement solutions for anyone experiencing hair loss, hair thinning, a receding hairline, male pattern baldness, and female pattern hair loss due to genetics, age, stress, or medical conditions. Thursday's enables people to reclaim the hair they used to have or want today via customized, human hair systems that blend seamlessly with their biological hair. "Our goal is to provide an experience that restores not only hair but also self-confidence. Whether it's a new dad, a grandfather, or a father figure—every man deserves to feel great about the way he looks," stated Michael Garfinkel, owner of Thursday's Hair Solutions. The Father's Day promotion includes a free consultation and first service for new male clients, providing them the opportunity to explore personalized hair replacement options in a comfortable, judgment-free setting. Thursday's non-invasive systems are designed to be breathable, secure, and virtually undetectable—allowing clients to swim, sweat, and live fully without compromise. Thursday's serves clients from across Los Angeles and Ventura Counties and beyond, with many returning for years, thanks to the personalized attention and transformative results. Dads interested in claiming their free first service should call 818.225.2000 or This Father's Day, give the gift of renewed confidence and let Thursday's Hair Solutions help the dads in your life look and feel like the best version of themselves. About Thursday's Hair Solutions Thursday's, a leader in non-surgical hair restoration solutions in Los Angeles, helps people with hair loss, balding, alopecia, receding hairline, and hair thinning reclaim the hair they used to have or want today. View source version on Contacts Michael GarfinkelOwnerThursday's Hair Solutions818 225 Sign in to access your portfolio
Fox News
15 minutes ago
- Fox News
How Justice Clarence Thomas led SCOTUS to kill DEI
Clarence Thomas has spent his professional life trying to return American law to the Declaration of Independence's founding promise that individuals should be judged as individuals rather than as members of racial, gender, or ethnic groups. It seems that his peers on the high court have been listening. Thomas' belief in individual rights precedes his time on the court. For example, in a 1985 law review article, Thomas discussed his daily responsibilities of enforcing the nation's civil rights laws as chairman of the EEOC. He wrote: "I intend to take EEO enforcement back to where it started by defending the rights of individuals who are hurt by discriminatory practices. … Those who insist on arguing that the principle of equal opportunity, the cornerstone of civil rights, means preferences for certain groups have relinquished their roles as moral and ethical leaders in this area." SUPREME COURT RULES UNANIMOUSLY IN FAVOR OF STRAIGHT OHIO WOMAN WHO CLAIMED DISCRIMINATIONJustice Thomas has reiterated that American law protects individual rather than groups rights throughout his three-and-a-half decades on the nation's highest court. In 1995's Missouri v. Jenkins, for instance, Thomas became the first Supreme Court justice to directly criticize Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Although he called state-mandated segregation "despicable," he said that the Court was wrong in 1954 to rely on disputable social science evidence to declare segregation unconstitutional rather than invoking the "constitutional principle" that "the government must treat citizens as individuals, and not as members of racial, ethnic or religious groups." Justice Thomas has made similar pronouncements in many other judicial opinions. His concurring opinion in 2007's Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 is perhaps the strongest articulation of his conception of equality: "The dissent attempts to marginalize the notion of a colorblind Constitution by consigning it to me and Members of today's plurality. … But I am quite comfortable in the company I keep. My view of the Constitution is Justice Harlan's view in Plessy: 'Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.'" More recently, Justice Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion in the Supreme Court's 2023 decisions holding that colleges and universities cannot consider race in admissions decisions that "While I am painfully aware of the social and economic ravages which have befallen my race and all who suffer discrimination, I hold out enduring hope that this country will live up to its principles so clearly enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States: that all men are created equal, are equal citizens, and must be treated equally before the law." Last week's Supreme Court decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services signals that proponents of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs should stop pretending that they are complying with the law. After all, one of the most liberal members of the Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote in an opinion for a unanimous Court that the "background circumstances" rule imposed by several lower courts of appeal requiring members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a Title VII discrimination claim is inconsistent with the text of Title VII and the Supreme Court's anti-discrimination precedents. CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINIONJustice Jackson's opinion for the Court reversing the lower courts might as well have been penned by Justice Thomas himself. Justice Jackson quoted the text of Title VII that makes it illegal to take an adverse employment action against "any individual." She further quoted a 2020 Supreme Court decision, Bostock v. Clayton County, that held that the "law's focus on individuals rather than groups [is] anything but academic." She added: "By establishing the same protections for every 'individual'—without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group—Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone."Justice Thomas joined Justice Jackson's opinion for the Court "in full." But he also issued a concurring opinion in which he suggested that the "background circumstances" rule is not only inconsistent with the statutory text of Title VII but is "plainly at odds with the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection." Most important for present purposes, Thomas made clear that if proponents of DEI are hoping that the Ames decision has nothing to do with their DEI programs, they are sorely mistaken. "American employers have long been 'obsessed' with 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' initiatives and affirmative action plans," he wrote. "Initiatives of this kind have often led to overt discrimination against those perceived to be in the majority." CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APPWhen Justice Antonin Scalia died in 2016, Court watchers openly speculated about who would replace him as the intellectual leader of the conservative legal movement. Clarence Thomas has unquestionably filled that role. After all, in Ames even Justice Thomas's liberal colleagues on the nation's highest court conceded that American law protects individual rather than group rights.
