logo
Under Attorney General Bondi's watch, victim service groups face cuts, uncertainty

Under Attorney General Bondi's watch, victim service groups face cuts, uncertainty

Miami Herald24-05-2025

WASHINGTON - Attorney General Pamela Bondi during her Senate confirmation bid pitched herself as a leader with a track record of supporting victims, a history some Republican senators pointed to when backing her nomination.
But after her first months in the role, victim service organizations and their supporters say there's fear and deep uncertainty about the future of Justice Department funding, something they describe as a mainstay in the nation's response to helping victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and human trafficking.
The Justice Department wiped from its website a grant opportunity used to assist victims of domestic abuse and sexual assault, only to repost the notice months later. It raised the potential of "consolidating grantmaking work" in certain areas, including the Office on Violence Against Women. And it terminated a swath of grant money directed toward organizations focused on helping crime victims, a decision five groups filed a lawsuit to reverse.
More recently, the White House budget blueprint for fiscal 2026 proposed eliminating nearly 40 DOJ grant programs, but didn't identify which ones.
The moves come amid a broader push from the Trump administration to address what it sees as waste, fraud and abuse in the federal government. Bondi weighed in on the grant terminations on social media last month, saying the department had begun cutting millions of dollars "in wasteful grants." In a past statement sent to media, Bondi said the department would "continue to ensure that services for victims are not impacted."
Yet, a group of organizations and victim service providers wrote to Bondi to outline their concerns. There's been bipartisan backing for supporting services for victims of domestic violence, human trafficking and other crimes, they said. But the department's recent moves have left "critical lifesaving programs uncertain about their ability to continue serving victims."
Organizations that signed on to the letter include the National Center for Victims of Crime and YWCA USA, but also state-focused organizations, such as the Louisiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence and the Georgia Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
"The terminations of grants, programmatic restructuring, loss of staff, disappearance of [grant notices], and lack of communication from DOJ to the field are causing grave insecurity and alarm across the nation among thousands of direct service providers," the letter, dated last month, reads.
That concern extends to rape crisis centers, domestic violence shelters, legal assistance providers and victim advocates, the letter argued.
"Local, state, and national service providers have been anguished and panicked to receive recent notices terminating their federal grants," the letter says.
Mary Graw Leary, a former federal prosecutor and former chair of the U.S. Sentencing Commission's Victims Advisory Group, said sometimes public officials claim to want to serve victims, only for their actions to not measure up to their claims.
But that "has been taken to an extreme level" under the most recent department actions, Mary Graw Leary, a law professor at The Catholic University of America, said.
"The claim that victims will be a focus - and that the protection and restoration of victims is a priority, will be a priority of the Department of Justice - has been belied by the most extreme assault on victims and funding to victims' programs in recent history," she said.
A Justice Department official, in a statement responding to a request for comment on the groups' concerns, acknowledged that funding opportunity notices from the Office on Violence Against Women had been removed earlier this year.
But the purpose was to review the notices and ensure "they were aligned with the Department of Justice's priorities given the change in administration," the official said. New notices from the OVW were posted when the review was completed, the official said.
Bondi is "committed to protecting and supporting victims of domestic violence, and the new [notices] reflect that priority," the official said. "It is entirely consistent for a new administration to come in, conduct a review and due diligence, and modify grant funding notices where appropriate."
But nonprofits who spoke to CQ Roll Call say the grant opportunities were abruptly taken down. The organizations said they were largely left in the dark from OVW on a transitional housing assistance grant program for victims of domestic abuse and sexual assault, receiving little to no official communication from the Justice Department.
The dynamic left them in limbo, fueling uncertainty as the organizations instead pivoted to considering painful contingency plans.
Bondi reputation
It was during her confirmation process that Bondi underscored her past work with victims.
"Nothing has impacted my career more than my experience as a state prosecutor, because I got to know, and still keep in touch with, many victims and their families from when I was a prosecutor," Bondi said in the opening remarks of her confirmation hearing.
Emery Gainey, who worked on Bondi's staff when she was Florida attorney general, described Bondi as a "staunch supporter of crime victims and crime victim rights."
Bondi visited victims in the hospital, at family relocation centers and at conferences for victims of crimes, Gainey said at Bondi's confirmation hearing. She also met with victims one-on-one, he said.
"Her personal compassion was constantly on full display when meeting with crime victims and their families," Gainey said.
In a written response to questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee, Bondi said she had prioritized serving the needs of "vulnerable and disadvantaged victims" as Florida's attorney general and as a state prosecutor.
"If confirmed, I will seek to ensure that the Department effectively implements the programs Congress has charged us with, particularly those protecting victims," Bondi wrote.
The Trump White House has also taken part in pro-victim messaging. A proclamation this year regarding National Crime Victims' Rights Week read: "We offer our unending support to every victim of crime."
Grant cuts
Nonprofits aimed at supporting victims say they are grappling with the grant terminations from April and hope the Trump administration will reconsider canceling the grant money.
The National Organization for Victim Advocacy saw the termination of one department grant totaling $870,000. The grant money went toward a program that trains college students to be victim advocates, and places them at community-based victim service agencies across the country, said Claire Ponder Selib, the organization's executive director.
One member of the program was placed at a community-based organization in Washington, D.C., that works with survivors of sex trafficking. The member, she said, was working to expand services to people who are deaf or hard of hearing.
NOVA is paying for the program's remaining expenses that would have been covered by the grant, she said. But the program will have to be shuttered if the organization is not able to get a new federal grant, she said.
And the Health Alliance for Violence Intervention, which facilitates hospital-based violence intervention programs for victims of violent crime, told CQ Roll Call last month that it's losing millions of dollars in funding due to two DOJ grant termination letters it received.
At least 55 entities it works with have received termination letters, representing more than $115 million in funding cuts, Fatimah Loren Dreier, the organization's executive director, said last month.
There are questions about which officials acted as the motivating force behind the grant cuts. Congressional Democrats, for example, have asked the Justice Department if any of the grant terminations had been made at the direction of the Trump administration's so-called Department of Government Efficiency.
Graw Leary said victims continually experience a lack of access to services when it comes to helping them recover or navigate the criminal justice system.
"It is absurd to suggest that crime victims in America are functioning in a system where there is a lot of fat and a bounty of services to help them," Graw Leary said. "Even today, even with federal funding, it is a skeleton of services for them, the slack of which is being picked up by many nonprofit and state and local organizations."
Meanwhile, a White House budget request has led to concerns that certain funding cuts will harm grant programs aimed at serving crime victims.
Under a section devoted to the Justice Department, the "skinny" version of the White House's budget blueprint proposes $1.02 billion in cuts related to reducing "Duplicative and Unnecessary State and Local Grant Programs."
The document proposes the elimination of nearly 40 department grant programs "that are duplicative, not aligned with the president's priorities, fail to reduce violent crime, or are weaponized against the American people."
The document did not provide specifics on which grant programs the Trump administration is requesting be eliminated.
Congressional response
The grant terminations have spurred an uproar from congressional Democrats, while Republicans have largely avoided criticizing the department's move to terminate the grants.
When asked about the grant terminations, Rep. Harold Rogers, R-Ky., who leads the House Appropriations subcommittee that oversees Justice Department funding, said: "We're looking at it."
"It's too early, [I've] not finished looking at it," Rogers said.
Rep. Ben Cline, R-Va., who also sits on the subcommittee, said there should be a pullback in government spending.
"We have to prioritize what gets funded and what doesn't. And at DOJ, law enforcement is our top priority, and Bondi is doing a good job of prioritizing safety and security," Cline said.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said department money has been provided in some situations with "no federal nexus," saying that grant money would be better used on thwarting drug trafficking, for example.
One Republican to raise questions about the grant terminations was Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, who sent a letter to Bondi acknowledging that the grant terminations impacted an array of victim services.
"I have long been a strong supporter of law enforcement and crime victims, and I want to ensure that the Justice Department is prioritizing services to both the men and women bravely serving our communities and also victims of crime," Grassley said in the letter.
The department, in a response letter this month, said the agency had reviewed more than 5,800 competitive grants awarded by the Office of Justice Programs and found that certain awards did not "effectuate program goals" or advance critical priorities.
Instead, the department said it has plans to divert those funds to support the agency's priorities, such as fighting violent crime and "directly supporting law enforcement operations." Also among the priorities was supporting "American victims" of trafficking and sexual assault.
Grassley, after receiving the letter, said at a committee meeting that part of the Trump administration's effort to refocus on violent crime included evaluating "inappropriate spending from the previous administration."
In one example, the senator said the government was spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a podcast series, blog and academic conference presentations.
"Seems to me we ought to use these resources to prosecute crime instead of just talking about crime," Grassley said.
Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Musk regrets some of his Trump criticisms, says they 'went too far'
Musk regrets some of his Trump criticisms, says they 'went too far'

Yahoo

time19 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Musk regrets some of his Trump criticisms, says they 'went too far'

Elon Musk, the world's richest person and Donald Trump's former advisor, said Wednesday he regretted some of his recent criticisms of the US president, after the pair's public falling-out last week. "I regret some of my posts about President @realDonaldTrump last week. They went too far," Musk wrote on his social media platform X. Musk's expression of regret came just days after Trump threatened the tech billionaire with "serious consequences" if he sought to punish Republicans who vote for a controversial spending bill. Their blistering break-up -- largely carried out on social media before a riveted public since Thursday last week -- was ignited by Musk's harsh criticism of Trump's so-called "big, beautiful" spending bill, which is currently before Congress. Some lawmakers who were against the bill had called on Musk -- one of the Republican Party's biggest financial backers in last year's presidential election -- to fund primary challenges against Republicans who voted for the legislation. "He'll have to pay very serious consequences if he does that," Trump, who also branded Musk "disrespectful," told NBC News on Saturday, without specifying what those consequences would be. Trump also said he had "no" desire to repair his relationship with the South African-born Tesla and SpaceX chief, and that he has "no intention of speaking to him." In his post on Wednesday, Musk did not specify which of his criticisms of Trump had gone "too far." - 'Wish him well' - The former allies had seemed to have cut ties amicably about two weeks ago, with Trump giving Musk a glowing send-off as he left his cost-cutting role at the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). But their relationship cracked within days as Musk described the spending bill as an "abomination" that, if passed by Congress, could define Trump's second term in office. Trump hit back at Musk's comments in an Oval Office diatribe and from there the row detonated, leaving Washington stunned. "Look, Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will anymore. I was surprised," Trump told reporters. Musk, who was Trump's biggest donor to his 2024 campaign, also raised the issue of the Republican's election win. "Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate," he posted, adding: "Such ingratitude." Trump later said on his Truth Social platform that cutting billions of dollars in subsidies and contracts to Musk's companies would be the "easiest way" to save the US government money. US media have put the value of the contracts at $18 billion. With real political and economic risks to their falling out, both appeared to inch back from the brink on Friday, with Trump telling reporters "I just wish him well," and Musk responding on X: "Likewise." Trump had spoken to NBC on Saturday after Musk deleted one of the explosive allegations he had made during their fallout, linking the president with disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. Musk had alleged that the Republican president is featured in unreleased government files on former associates of Epstein, who died by suicide in 2019 while he faced sex trafficking charges. Trump was named in a trove of deposition and statements linked to Epstein that were unsealed by a New York judge in early 2024. The president has not been accused of any wrongdoing in the case. "Time to drop the really big bomb: (Trump) is in the Epstein files," Musk posted on X. "That is the real reason they have not been made public." Musk did not reveal which files he was talking about and offered no evidence for his claim. He appeared to have deleted those tweets by Saturday morning. bur-sco/dhc

The Danger of Trump's Clash with the Conservative Legal Movement
The Danger of Trump's Clash with the Conservative Legal Movement

Yahoo

time19 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

The Danger of Trump's Clash with the Conservative Legal Movement

FOR NEARLY A DECADE, the conservative legal movement has endured a marriage of convenience with Donald J. Trump. The president has now unequivocally asked for a divorce. The signs of trouble in this relationship were there from the beginning. The conservative legal movement owes its remarkable success to three things: principle, persuasion, and persistence. These are qualities Trump does not appreciate. His wins flow from other characteristics. Over the years, they tried to make it work. Trump held up the core of his bargain—the nomination of traditional constitutionalist judges. He appointed men and women of generally high caliber, in the model of judges we might have expected from a President Rubio, Cruz, or Jeb Bush. That transformed judiciary led to many victories, including strengthened First and Second Amendments, a fatal blow to racial preferences, a historic turn against the administrative state, and the reversal of the conservative legal movement's great white whale—the jurisprudentially appalling Roe v. Wade. But, over time, Trump's dalliances with illegality and his failure to live up to his oath of fidelity to the Constitution grew harder to ignore. His actions following the 2020 election, culminating in the events of January 6th, nearly ruptured the relationship. Yet somehow, with some work and wishful thinking, the parties moved past that unpleasantness and looked to 2025 with hope. At the jubilant post-election Federalist Society dinner in November 2024, one leader boasted from the podium that he had just gotten off the phone with the once and future president and had told him he was about to dine with thousands of his favorite lawyers. Share Yet soon, the trouble, which anyone outside the dysfunctional relationship could see coming, materialized. Again in power, Trump engaged in brazen corruption, enabled and promoted unfit characters to positions of public trust, broke faith with the rule of law, and recklessly flirted with constitutional crisis. Mocking the very notion of 'law,' Trump infamously tweeted: 'He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.' Much of the conservative legal movement closed its eyes and thought of the judges. But if anybody in the conservative legal movement thought the toxic relationship could still survive all this bad behavior, the president has moved to end things. He has turned his back on the movement that enabled his rise and made possible his most lasting (constructive) legacy: the transformation of the federal judiciary. Conservatives hoping for more judges like those of his first term should prepare for disappointment. He's seeing other people. The break came in two steps in late May. First, Trump nominated Emil Bove to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals—a figure known not for commitment to conservative jurisprudence but for loyalty to Trump, including his role in the politicization of the Justice Department. Then, on social media, Trump expressed regret for ever having listened to the Federalist Society and called Leonard Leo, one of its longtime leaders, 'a sleazebag' and 'a bad person' who 'probably hates America.' IN THE MID-TWENTIETH CENTURY, progressives controlled the judiciary, the bar, and the legal academy. Conservatives struggled to push back. Eisenhower regretted appointing Brennan and Warren to the Supreme Court. Nixon campaigned against the Supreme Court and had an opportunity to change it with four vacancies in his time in office. Yet he struggled to find qualified candidates, saw multiple nominations fail spectacularly, and his successful nominations included Justice Blackmun, who would shortly author Roe v. Wade. Republicans had neither the arguments, nor the bench of talent, nor the political support network to reliably confirm justices cut from a different cloth. In the 1970s, the conservative legal movement began to take shape. Over the half century that followed, it transformed legal culture and became a central player in the staffing of Republican administrations and a pipeline for judicial talent. By the time Donald Trump became president in 2017, it could plausibly claim to have played the decisive role in his victory, after which it partnered with him to help advance one of its primary goals: the transformation of the federal judiciary. What explains this success? Principle, persuasion, and persistence. Early conservative slogans favored in the Nixon era—like 'strict construction' or 'law and order'—lacked coherence. Over time, the movement developed intellectually robust doctrines—textualism and originalism. These insisted that judges interpret the law as written, based on its meaning at the time of enactment. The fundamental principles have guided the conservative legal movement—indeed, adherence to them defines what constitutes that movement. Contrary to popular perception, the movement is not monolithic. It includes a multitude of institutions, both academic and litigation centers. The Federalist Society, founded in 1982, is among the most prominent institutions of the movement, but it includes many members with diverse perspectives. It's a well-worn observation that the Federalist Society is a 'they, not an it.' Members of the conservative legal movement have differed in politics and law. They might describe themselves as conservative or libertarian, Burkean or Hayekian. They continue to have debates about how to apply originalism, whether courts should exhibit 'restraint' or 'engagement,' about whether and to what degree the courts should defer to legislatures, about the legitimacy of the administrative state, and more. The center of gravity in the community on some of these questions has shifted over time. Members of the conservative legal movement remained united, though, in the belief that law matters, that the law is knowable, and that the law serves as an important constraint on judges as well as on the other branches. These are the principles to which it held and the constancy with which it held them throughout changing circumstances gave them force and gave the movement coherence. For more deep, clear-eyed, historically informed essays from sometimes unexpected points of view, sign up for a free or paid Bulwark subscription. To be sure, some individuals were drawn to the cause with partisan or policy motivations. And it cannot be denied that the correlation of conservative theory with some conservative policy ends (for example, restricting abortion, protecting gun rights, or banning affirmative action) supercharged the movement. But the claim of the critics on the left that the legal principles merely cloaked a pursuit of a particular agenda never held, either among the legal theorists who debated the fine points of originalism or even among the ranks of the lawyers who staffed Republican administrations and congressional offices. Ideas, as every young conservative will tell you, have consequences. But not without persuasion. Conservative lawyers, in particular, understood that persuasion is not merely a political tactic—it is a civic duty. Ours is a system built on consent, not coercion; on the give-and-take of argument, not the imposition of will. A commitment to persuasion lay at the heart of the conservative legal movement for decades. It could be seen at Federalist Society events featuring panels showcasing diverse views and in signature debates between legal luminaries, right and left. But, in a genuine republic, the law cannot be left merely to the lawyers, and the conservative legal movement worked hard to convince a popular audience. Edwin Meese, President Reagan's attorney general, championed the cause of originalism. Justice Antonin Scalia famously traveled widely giving speeches and debating before general audiences and giving interviews to popular media. The core ideas of originalism became broadly accepted by Republican-leaning voters and, soon, even Supreme Court nominees of Democratic presidents seemed to embrace them in their confirmation hearings. Lasting change in America requires one further element: persistence. Our Framers gave us a constitutional system where even a decisive electoral triumph does not yield transformation. A political intellectual movement must stay true to its course over successive administrations, through successes and setbacks. And the conservative legal movement saw its share of setbacks as it saw close defeats on cases ranging from abortion, affirmative action, property rights, same-sex marriage, and more. But despite these defeats, the conservative legal movement stayed the course. It did not succumb to the temptations of jurisdiction-stripping, court packing, or judicial impeachments. It stuck to principle. It kept up the work of persuasion, and with persistence, it prevailed, at least as far as its project to transform the judiciary goes. Leonard Leo, in response to Trump's attacks, stated—correctly, from a conservative and originalist perspective—that 'the Federal Judiciary is better than it's ever been in modern history.' That doesn't mean the judiciary has been wholly remade; even today's conservative Supreme Court can deliver opinions no originalist could love. But by any measure, the conservative legal movement has had remarkable success. Now Trump threatens to burn it all down. Join now EVEN TRUMP CRITICS ON THE RIGHT must acknowledge that we arrived at this point, in part, through the willingness of the conservative legal movement to work closely with a president who has never had much fondness for conservatism or the law. Yet politics demands a measure of practicality and prudence. The Democratic party had long ago rejected originalism and limited-government constitutionalism. For the conservative legal movement, the GOP remained the only viable path for its political project. Not long before Donald Trump emerged as the presumptive Republican nominee in 2016, Justice Scalia had passed away; a vacancy remained on the Court, and the remaining justices were evenly divided on key questions. The Court hung in the balance like never before. The conservative legal movement made a deal with the GOP nominee. He pledged to nominate originalist jurists, including by taking the unprecedented step of publishing a list of prospective options for the Supreme Court. In exchange, much of the conservative legal movement supported his candidacy. Following his surprise election, many seasoned veterans of the conservative legal movement staffed his administration and soon worked productively with others on the outside to deliver on Trump's pledge. The success of the judicial project, however, came at a deep civic cost. The conservative legal movement's fixation on the judiciary led many of its members to ignore (or worse, excuse) the degradation of the other two branches of government and damage to constitutional norms and values. While there were many notable exceptions, much of the movement, particularly in circles closest to power, held their tongues. A community built on principles became increasingly transactional, and Trump learned that he could get away with quite a lot of constitutional arson without losing the support of self-described constitutional conservatives. America is a two-party system. Many interest groups will find that one party seems implacably opposed to their cause and, naturally, fall into an alliance with the other. But the alliance must serve known ends, and the interest group must retain some leverage. Legal conservatives must remain the constitutional conscience of the GOP, not merely captives. Trump found that he could count on many of them to be the latter, so long as he kept delivering judges. Reasonable conservatives can disagree whether the bargain was ever worth it. (I have grave doubts.) But now that Trump has threatened to walk away from his prior commitment to nominating conservative judges, what remains for the conservative legal movement in the alliance? It's time for conservatives, even those who support the president, to rebel. It's time for them to do what they have done best: stand on principle, persuade, and persist. Zip this to a friend or zap it onto social media: Share When George W. Bush went around the conservative legal movement and nominated his White House counsel to the Supreme Court, it divided the right. But the nomination of Harriet Miers ultimately failed because a growing chorus of conservative legal thinkers and their allies in the Senate asked hard questions and spoke important truths. They especially recoiled at the argument from the White House that they should support Miers because she had the president's confidence and she would vote the 'correct' way. As much as they may have admired President Bush, conservative lawyers were not about to throw away their leverage or their values to support whomever the president wished to see on the bench. They insisted that Republican presidents appoint principled legal conservatives, not presidential lackeys or outcome-driven jurists. They must continue to insist that now. Join now WHATEVER ONE THINKS ABOUT the relationship between Trump and the conservative legal movement to date, the breach portends ill not only for conservatives, but for all Americans. Even MAGA voters will likely soon have reasons to regret it. The first Trump administration relied on stalwarts of the conservative legal movement in the White House, the Justice Department, and at many key agencies. Their counsel helped restrain the president's worst impulses and enabled his more lasting accomplishments. Trump 2.0, instead, drips with contempt for the law. The president has removed internal safeguards and watchdogs, replaced seasoned lawyers with loyalists, and put MAGA movement hacks in essential positions. Ed Martin, briefly an interim U.S. attorney and now the pardon attorney in the Department of Justice, is but one example of a disturbingly common type. An administration acting without the guidance of serious lawyers will prove more chaotic, more likely to abuse the rights of citizens, and less likely to accomplish meaningful positive reforms. We have already seen some of this. But the bigger, lasting damage could come to the judiciary. As every middle schooler learns, our system rests on checks and balances upon which our liberties depend. Each branch checks the others. We do not have the option of stopping an overreaching president with a vote of no confidence or a recall election. We count on Congress and the judiciary to perform their constitutional roles. With a supine Congress, the duty to hold the president accountable to the law increasingly falls to the courts. Checked by judges, including his appointees, who uphold the law rather than follow presidential whim, the president and his allies have grown irate. They've deployed incendiary rhetoric, pushed for impeachment, and mused about suspending the writ of habeas corpus. All this amounts to a sustained campaign against the authority and legitimacy of the courts. The judges, to date, have responded with courage and firmness. In breaking with the conservative legal movement, the president must hope to find nominees made of more pliable stuff, more loyal to him personally. Or, instead of weak judges, the president might find fighters—fighters committed to advancing his agenda from the bench. For years, a small but growing band of right-wing academics and agitators has called for a different type of judicial nominee. No longer should the right be satisfied, they have argued, with a commitment to the law and neutral principles in judging. Instead, they have hoped for a future where Republican presidents would install on the bench loyalists and fighters for their view of the good. This is not merely a more aggressive posture than that taken by the traditional conservative legal movement; it is a complete inversion of all that it held dear. Constitutionalists should take little comfort from knowing that legislating from the bench points in a rightward direction. Share The Bulwark Other dangers lurk in abandoning the conservative legal movement's talent pipeline. For one, it has produced remarkably high-quality judges, as it did empirically in Trump's first term, despite the characterization of critics. A Trump appointment process that cuts out the conservative legal movement likely will name less-qualified candidates, from which all litigants will suffer. Trump's recent decision to fully end the American Bar Association's (deeply flawed) review of judicial nominees will further enable lower-quality nominations. Conservatives should also worry about a return to nominations based on patronage, political relationships, personal loyalty, or objective qualifications absent clear jurisprudential commitments. These approaches to judicial nominations yielded jurists like Warren, Blackmun, and Souter. Who knows what surprises a lawyer who happens to enjoy the favor of Trump at the moment might bring to the bench? In cutting out the conservative legal movement from the process of judicial selection, the Trump administration would also shift the gravity of the nomination and confirmation process toward the White House and away from the Senate. Several process changes in the Senate have weakened the hand of senators in influencing nominations, but historically, a collaborative process between the branches often yielded higher-quality nominees possessing an appropriate judicial temperament. On the Republican side, the conservative legal movement fostered a dialogue between presidents and senators based on shared principles. Given Trump's well-known gift for self-inflicted wounds, it shouldn't surprise that his decision to sideline the conservative legal movement in judicial nominations also undermines his goals. Judges tend to retire when they have the confidence that the president will replace them with nominees of whom they would approve. Conservative judges will no longer have that confidence and may defer retiring or taking senior status as a result, giving him far less of a chance to shape the judiciary this term than he otherwise would. Furthermore, even if one agreed that a turn toward a more outcome-oriented right-wing judiciary was desirable, it would be a generational project, as the traditional conservative legal movement has seen. And without the principle, persuasion, and persistence modeled by the conservative legal movement, its odds of success are long. Furthermore, the type of sharp-elbowed 'fighter' MAGA wants on the bench would only complicate that project by repelling rather than persuading judges whose votes they need to prevail on multi-judge panels. Populist commentators imagine that Federalist Society judges 'make nice with the left, get invited to the right conferences, and write elegant dissents.' In reality, traditional conservatives persuade their colleagues and increasingly write majority opinions. Our new MAGA-warriors in robes will be the ones writing dissents, but with more anger than eloquence. Some commentators have suggested that Trump's rejection of the conservative legal movement will have little impact on nominations because he will have nowhere else to look for judicial candidates than Federalist Society circles. This is wishful thinking for two reasons. First, if the president's chief concern in judicial selection is a loyal MAGA fighter, there are plenty of them to be found. There are over a million lawyers in America, many are Republicans. The president can turn to the ranks of the Republican National Lawyers Association and look for lawyers who have worked on campaigns or run for office with MAGA bona fides. The conservative legal movement performed an important function in recommending individuals with established jurisprudential commitments. Finding such people takes work and judgment, but if you want hacks, you can swing a gavel and hit them. The second reason this is cold comfort is that today's Federalist Society membership is not what it was twenty years ago. Belonging in the Federalist Society once clearly signified a deep interest in and commitment to a certain jurisprudential approach; if anything, membership might hurt one's career in some circles. As the society has grown and become associated with power, it has become attractive to ambitious lawyers more generally. Long-established leaders of the conservative legal movement know very well who among the ranks has a serious commitment to sound jurisprudence. But if the president has hostility to the core of the conservative legal movement, and to its most prominent leaders, he can certainly find pliant tools who can claim Federalist Society membership. Join now THE NOMINATION OF EMIL BOVE to the Third Circuit presents the first test case of a Trump presidency divorced from the conservative legal movement. A self-respecting Senate would reject this nomination on basic character and competence grounds. Bove's involvement in the deeply corrupt Eric Adams affair alone disqualifies him. But this nomination is not just about Bove. It is about how the second Trump term will approach judicial nominations, including to the Supreme Court. If the Senate confirms Bove, it will send a clear signal that the president has the freedom to depart from the model of judges long favored by the conservative legal movement. We can count on him to take that freedom and run with it for other vacancies, including for the Supreme Court. The president himself announced Bove in partisan terms, promising his followers on Truth Social that Bove 'will end the Weaponization of Justice, restore the Rule of Law, and do anything else that is necessary to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. Emil Bove will never let you down!' Outside commentators who have long rejected principled legal conservatism applauded and suggested Bove would be the new model for Trump judicial nominees, those who are committed 'warriors' who understand 'the fight for our country is existential.' The Bove nomination is an existential fight—for the conservative legal movement. If the conservative legal movement and its allies in the Senate rally to defeat this nomination as they did the Miers nomination twenty years ago, they will prove their commitment to principle and ensure their relevance going forward. They may get invited to fewer parties at the White House, but if legal conservatives stand firm now, they will remain a force to be reckoned with, for this administration and those to come. If, instead, the conservative legal movement accepts this nomination, it will surrender any leverage and influence it has. At the very least, it will lose its purpose in the political arena. Perhaps it will fade into obscurity, or return to its roots as primarily a debating society for constitutional nerds and academics. There's another, darker possibility. In surrendering to and accepting the Bove nomination, the conservative legal movement could send the message that the rising band of illiberal right-wingers and polemical pugilists have a place in its tent, alongside the Burkeans and Hayekians. In such an eventuality, the movement devoted to law and truth would legitimize those who reject it. In blessing the heretics of the 'post-constitutional' right, the movement will have lost its purpose. And its soul. Share this essay with your favorite Burkean or Hayekian conservative. Share Gregg Nunziata is the executive director of the Society for the Rule of Law. He is a veteran of the conservative legal movement and a former chief nominations counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Federal appeals court to hear arguments in Trump's long-shot effort to fight hush money conviction
Federal appeals court to hear arguments in Trump's long-shot effort to fight hush money conviction

Yahoo

time19 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Federal appeals court to hear arguments in Trump's long-shot effort to fight hush money conviction

Five months after President Donald Trump was sentenced without penalty in the New York hush money case, his attorneys will square off again with prosecutors Wednesday in one of the first major tests of the Supreme Court's landmark presidential immunity decision. Trump is relying heavily on the high court's divisive 6-3 immunity ruling from July in a long-shot bid to get his conviction reviewed – and ultimately overturned – by federal courts. After being convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records, Trump in January became the first felon to ascend to the presidency in US history. Even after Trump was reelected and federal courts became flooded with litigation tied to his second term, the appeals in the hush money case have chugged forward in multiple courts. A three-judge panel of the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals – all named to the bench by Democratic presidents – will hear arguments Wednesday in one of those cases. Trump will be represented on Wednesday by Jeffrey Wall, a private lawyer and Supreme Court litigator who served as acting solicitor general during Trump's first administration. Many of the lawyers who served on Trump's defense team in the hush money case have since taken top jobs within the Justice Department. The case stems from the 2023 indictment announced by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, who accused Trump of falsely categorizing payments he said were made to quash unflattering stories during the 2016 election. Trump was accused of falsifying a payment to his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to cover up a $130,000 payment Cohen made to adult-film star Stormy Daniels to keep her from speaking out before the 2016 election about an alleged affair with Trump. (Trump has denied the affair.) Trump was ultimately convicted last year and was sentenced without penalty in January, days before he took office. The president is now attempting to move that case to federal court, where he is betting he'll have an easier shot at arguing that the Supreme Court's immunity decision in July will help him overturn the conviction. Trump's earlier attempts to move the case to federal court have been unsuccessful. US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, nominated by President Bill Clinton, denied the request in September – keeping Trump's case in New York courts instead. The 2nd Circuit will now hear arguments on Trump's appeal of that decision on Wednesday. 'He's lost already several times in the state courts,' said David Shapiro, a former prosecutor and now a lecturer at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. And Trump's long-running battle with New York Judge Juan Merchan, Shapiro said, has 'just simmered up through the system' in New York courts in a way that may have convinced Trump that federal courts will be more receptive. Trump, who frequently complained about Merchan, has said he wants his case heard in an 'unbiased federal forum.' Trump's argument hangs largely on a technical but hotly debated section of the Supreme Court's immunity decision last year. Broadly, that decision granted former presidents 'at least presumptive' immunity for official acts and 'absolute immunity' when presidents were exercising their constitutional powers. State prosecutors say the hush money payments were a private matter – not official acts of the president – and so they are not covered by immunity. But the Supreme Court's decision also barred prosecutors from attempting to show a jury evidence concerning a president's official acts, even if they are pursuing alleged crimes involving that president's private conduct. Without that prohibition, the Supreme Court reasoned, a prosecutor could 'eviscerate the immunity' the court recognized by allowing a jury to second-guess a president's official acts. Trump is arguing that is exactly what Bragg did when he called White House officials such as former communications director Hope Hicks and former executive assistant Madeleine Westerhout to testify at his trial. Hicks had testified that Trump felt it would 'have been bad to have that story come out before the election,' which prosecutors later described as the 'nail' in the coffin of the president's defense. Trump's attorneys are also pointing to social media posts the president sent in 2018 denying the Daniels hush money scheme as official statements that should not have been used in the trial. State prosecutors 'introduced into evidence and asked the jury to scrutinize President Trump's official presidential acts,' Trump's attorneys told the appeals court in a filing last month. 'One month after trial, the Supreme Court unequivocally recognized an immunity prohibiting the use of such acts as evidence at any trial of a former president.' A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. If Trump's case is ultimately reviewed by federal courts, that would not change his state law conviction into a federal conviction. Trump would not be able to pardon himself just because a federal court reviews the case. Bragg's office countered that it's too late for federal courts to intervene. Federal officials facing prosecution in state courts may move their cases to federal court in many circumstances under a 19th century law designed to ensure states don't attempt to prosecute them for conduct performed 'under color' of a US office or agency. A federal government worker, for instance, might seek to have a case moved to federal court if they are sued after getting into a car accident while driving on the job. But in this case, Bragg's office argued, Trump has already been convicted and sentenced. That means, prosecutors said, there's really nothing left for federal courts to do. 'Because final judgment has been entered and the state criminal action has concluded, there is nothing to remove to federal district court,' prosecutors told the 2nd Circuit in January. Even if that's not true, they said, seeking testimony from a White House adviser about purely private acts doesn't conflict with the Supreme Court's ruling in last year's immunity case. Bragg's office has pointed to a Supreme Court ruling as well: the 5-4 decision in January that allowed Trump to be sentenced in the hush money case. The president raised many of the same concerns about evidence when he attempted to halt that sentencing before the inauguration. A majority of the Supreme Court balked at that argument in a single sentence that, effectively, said Trump could raise those concerns when he appeals his conviction. That appeal remains pending in state court. 'The alleged evidentiary violations at President-elect Trump's state-court trial,' the Supreme Court wrote, 'can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store