Trump freed to pursue even more of his agenda after Supreme Court win on injunctions
By setting new limits on federal judges using nationwide injunctions, the court freed Trump's hand to pursue his already sweeping view of presidential power in ever more expansive ways. The morning decision punctuated what has been an extraordinary week for the president, both at home and abroad, as he approaches the six-month mark of his second administration.
For a president who continually rails against unelected judges exceeding their mandate by blocking his policies, Friday's Supreme Court ruling amounted to a form of vindication.
And after a string of presidents chafed against judges who blocked their policies from taking effect, Trump now finds himself freed from some of the burdens his predecessors faced.
'In practice, he has now become a more powerful executive than he was before this decision came down,' said Shira Scheindlin, a former US District Court judge. 'But I will say that many presidents have been very unhappy with these national injunctions. It started under George W. Bush, then Obama, then Biden, and of course, Trump,' she said. 'It depends whose ox is being gored.'
White House officials were quick to cite a line in Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion as bolstering Trump's criticism of judges he thinks rule beyond their remit.
'When a court concludes the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power too,' wrote Barrett, whom Trump appointed during his first term but had recently been the subject of his frustration — at least before Friday's ruling.
The ostensible issue at hand in the ruling was birthright citizenship, and there could be immediate repercussions on who is eligible to become a citizen in at least some states. Some Democrats and immigrant rights groups warned of pending bureaucratic chaos, where a baby's birth state would determine whether they qualified for US citizenship.
But the citizenship issue itself won't be decided by the court until later. And when Trump emerged in the White House Briefing Room on Friday morning, the matter appeared almost secondary to the larger win that erases one of the checks on his executive authority.
'Thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with these numerous policies and those that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis,' an ebullient Trump said from the White House podium.
Aside from the birthright citizenship issue, he listed ending funding for 'sanctuary cities,' suspending refugee resettlement, freezing federal funding and blocking taxpayer funds for transgender medical care as examples of areas where the administration now plans to use the ruling to unblock Trump's orders.
'We have so many of them,' Trump said. 'I have a whole list. I'm not going to bore you.'
There are other avenues plaintiffs could pursue to block Trump, including class action lawsuits. And while Friday's ruling could slow his orders from being blocked, many may still ultimately end up before the Supreme Court.
But at least for Friday, Trump was in a celebratory mood.
The president not only took great delight in the court's ruling, but in the court itself. He walked into the briefing room wearing a smile of satisfaction, the capstone of one of the most remarkable weeks since returning to power.
His hourlong news conference played out as a victory lap not only for his birthright citizenship executive order but also for his decision to launch military strikes on Iran, despite not knowing the ultimate outcome of either.
The court has yet to rule on the merits of the immigration question and the long-term fate of the Iranian nuclear program is still in question.
'Well,' Trump said Friday as he stepped to the lectern, 'this was a big one, wasn't it?'
He was referring to the Supreme Court opinion handed down less than two hours earlier, but the words also served as a metaphor for the past weeks of his presidency, one that is forever shaped by his first term in office.
Not only does Trump enjoy the luxury of an obedient Republican Party, he also has the enviable benefit of a high court majority shaped by his hand.
Trump is only the latest occupant of the Oval Office to test the powers of the executive branch of government. The court's ruling on Friday will almost certainly be applauded by future presidents of either party.
'These injunctions have allowed district court judges to be emperors,' Trump's Attorney General Pam Bondi, standing alongside the president, said Friday. 'They vetoed all of President Trump's power, and they cannot do that. This has been a bipartisan problem that has lasted five presidential terms. Five different presidents and it has ended today.'
But the fact that he had the good fortune of nominating three Supreme Court justices in his first term and is back to see the fruits of their conservative labors makes him somewhat distinct from nearly all presidents who have come before him.
'I'm grateful to the Supreme Court for stepping in and solving this very, very big and complex problem, and they've made it very simple,' Trump said. 'I want to thank Justice Barrett, who wrote the opinion brilliantly, as well as Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Thomas. Great people.'
That is not how he was describing Barrett in private over the last several months. Behind the scenes, the president had griped about some of the Supreme Court justices he appointed during his first term, believing they were not sufficiently standing behind his agenda.
In private, some of Trump's allies have told him that Barrett is 'weak' and that her rulings have not been in line with how she presented herself in an interview before Trump nominated her to the bench in 2020, according to sources. Many conservatives were apoplectic in March when Barrett voted to reject Trump's plan to freeze nearly $2 billion in foreign aid.
'It's not just one ruling. It's been a few different events he's complained about privately,' a senior administration official told CNN in June.
Now, however, Barrett — along with the court's other five conservatives — handed Trump a win in the most prominent case of the term.
As another Supreme Court term comes to an end, questions will inevitably rise about potential retirements on the bench. The prospect of Trump gaining another appointment is far from certain, but hardly out of the question. White House lawyers have developed an early roster of contenders should a vacancy occur, a standard practice for all administrations.
The president decided to forego a trip Friday to his golf course in Bedminster, New Jersey, opting to spend a rare weekend at the White House as Senate Republicans work through an impasse over a monumental tax-and-spending bill that contains virtually all of Trump's domestic agenda. He once again called out those who are raising concerns about the measure, describing them as 'grandstanders,' and although he initially suggested his July 4 deadline was not 'the end-all,' he later upped the pressure on Truth Social.
'The House of Representatives must be ready to send it to my desk before July 4th — We can get it done,' he posted.
As Trump turns toward the second half of his first year in office, myriad challenges await him and his party as the early stages of the midterm election campaign begin taking shape.
Republican pollsters have privately warned party leaders of the potential political fallout from the megabill, particularly the proposed deep cuts to Medicaid and other social safety-net programs to help pay for the extension of Trump's tax cuts. The president has repeatedly pledged to not touch Medicaid, a promise that may well be litigated in the 2026 campaign.
But Trump offered no signs of anxiety that many of his fellow Republicans in Congress have expressed – particularly about funding for rural hospitals – arguing again Friday that his bill would be beneficial to all Americans.
'It's a great bill. It's a popular bill,' Trump said. 'But we'll get no Democrats, only because they don't want to vote for Trump.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Laura Coates Uses Trump's Own Words to Shatter ‘Woke' Smithsonian Claims: ‘Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself, Mr. President'
In 2017, Trump called the Smithsonian's National Museum of African American History and Culture a "beautiful tribute to so many American heroes" CNN's Laura Coates took issue Tuesday night with President Donald Trump's repeated claims that the Smithsonian Institute has gone 'out of control' with woke content and used some of his own words from 2017 to prove him wrong. Trump took to Truth Social Tuesday to announce that he has instructed his attorneys to review the Smithsonian's museums. More from TheWrap Laura Coates Uses Trump's Own Words to Shatter 'Woke' Smithsonian Claims: 'Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself, Mr. President' | Video Trump's White House Lashes Out at Rosie O'Donnell Again in Response to Mark Hamill's Near Emigration 'Morning Joe' Warns Rep. Elise Stefanik's Home District Boos Are a 'Terrible Sign' for Republicans | Video Shonda Rhimes Says Self-Censorship Is Palpable as Networks Cower to Trump 'The Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL, where everything discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been,' Trump wrote. 'This Country cannot be WOKE, because WOKE IS BROKE.' Among the museums that Trump has targeted is the Smithsonian's National Museum of African American History and Culture, which Coates was quick to point out Tuesday. The CNN anchor was also quick to note that, contrary to his recent claims, Trump had nothing but good things to say about the museum in question after he toured it in 2017. To prove her point, Coates played a clip of the speech Trump gave following his visit. 'This museum is a beautiful tribute to so many American heroes. It's amazing to see,' Trump said at the time. 'We did a pretty comprehensive tour, but not comprehensive enough. So, [Smithsonian Secretary] Lonnie [Bunch III] I'll be back. I told you that. Because I could stay here for a lot longer, believe me. It's really incredible. This tour was a meaningful reminder of why we have to fight bigotry, intolerance, and hatred in all of its very ugly forms.' You can watch the clip yourself in the video below. For her part, Coates took particular issue with Trump's insistence that the museums his administration is reviewing focus only on suffering and oppression. 'Yes, it goes into the unvarnished truth of slavery in America, the brutal reality that millions endured and the impact that's still felt today,' Coates acknowledge about the National Museum of African American History and Culture. 'But the museum, if you actually go to it rather than just talk about it and see it on paper from a Truth Social post, it doesn't only focus on suffering. It is about resilience and achievement and celebration. Umbrella? History.' The CNN anchor noted that the museum highlights the achievements of Black icons like Muhammad Ali, Louis Armstrong, Jim Brown, Gabby Douglas and Carl Lewis. 'If that's woke, then maybe woke just means telling the whole story because every exhibition that I've just mentioned showcases exactly what Trump says that he wants: success, brightness, a look toward the future,' Coates argued. Responding to Trump's 2017 remark that the museum is a 'reminder of why we have to fight bigotry, intolerance, and hatred in all of its very ugly forms,' Coates concluded, '[I] couldn't have said it better myself, Mr. President.' The post Laura Coates Uses Trump's Own Words to Shatter 'Woke' Smithsonian Claims: 'Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself, Mr. President' | Video appeared first on TheWrap.
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Stablecoins Should Not Be Exempt From New York Crypto Tax, Lawmaker Says
New York State Assemblymember Phil Steck's proposed tax on crypto transactions will not be modified to accommodate stablecoins' use in everyday payments, the lawmaker told Decrypt. 'I don't think that there should be some exemption from a tax on crypto if you buy it for the purpose of using it as a currency,' he said on Tuesday. 'I can't see, frankly, crypto being used to take the place of the dollar bill in everyday transactions.' Last week, Steck estimated that a 0.2% tax on crypto transactions in the Empire State would generate $158 million annually, which could go toward helping schools combat substance abuse in upstate New York by funding the expansion of an existing support program. 'We thought this might be a way to raise the money needed to make this a statewide program,' he said, noting that the state's Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services currently serves communities in New York City and has faced budget constraints. Crypto advocates should support what appears to be a painless way of raising money to help those in need because it would 'show their commitment to doing something positive for the public,' the 66-year-old lawmaker said. Not all cryptocurrencies are the same, but digital assets are mostly speculative and resemble a form of entertainment, Steck said. And when Steck wants to watch professional baseball, he has no problem with paying a 4% sales tax on Mets tickets. Steck's bill would go into effect immediately if passed, and it comes as stablecoin legislation is expected to unlock more competition in the $280 billion sector, from the likes of Bank of America to Citigroup, following the passage of the GENIUS Act last month. But at least one observer has raised concerns that the bill would penalize consumers for transfers between their own accounts that incur no profits. These movements are similar to those an individual would execute between a savings and checking account. Stablecoins are often pegged to the U.S. dollar and backed by a mix of cash and U.S. Treasuries. Some regulators have compared them to poker chips in the past because crypto traders primarily use them primarily as a way to swap out of relatively volatile assets. Visa Adds More Stablecoin Features, Unveiling Avalanche, Stellar Support Steck's bill could make a positive impact upstate, but it's unclear how a 0.2% excise tax would play out in the epicenter of the financial world. Steck said his legislation would not include exemptions for high-frequency traders, who can execute thousands of transactions in a second while using complex computer algorithms to capitalize on the smallest changes in markets. 'I would see taxing high-frequency trading as very advantageous because [many economists] do not consider that to be productive economic activity,' he said. 'It's not for investment purposes. It's essentially a form of gambling.' Steck has meanwhile called for the reinstatement of a state tax on stock transfers. New York collected a 5-cent fee on sales over $20 from 1905 to 1981. It's possible that Steck's $158 million revenue estimate is low. His team tried to get information on the volume of crypto transactions in New York from the state's Department of Financial Services, but a bill memo shared with Decrypt notes those efforts were unsuccessful. Under the bill's plain text, crypto users would be taxed for moving funds between accounts they own, a non-event from the perspective of federal tax, Nick Slettengren, co-founder and CEO of Count on Sheep, a tax preparation service, told Decrypt. 'Unless regulations carve it out, [the bill] would penalize basic security hygiene and bookkeeping,' he said. 'That's a recipe for confusion, over-collection, and disputes.' Steck isn't the only one turning to crypto to help fund schools. Wyoming debuted its Frontier Stable Token (FRNT) on Tuesday, becoming the first state to issue stablecoin, and revenue generated by the token's reserves will go toward the state's school foundation fund. Asked for his thoughts on FRNT, Steck said 'they're going to have to pay a lot of money to create that currency digitally, which is very expensive from the point of view of using energy.' The lawmaker did not appear to know the difference between proof-of-work or proof-of-stake, or that Bitcoin's energy consumption is massive compared to other networks, including the seven blockchains that Wyoming's stablecoin debuted on earlier this week. So far, Steck said he hasn't had the opportunity to gauge assemblymembers' thoughts on the crypto tax. Not only was the bill just introduced, but he said that the New York legislature will not be in session until January.
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Exclusive-Judge in US crosshairs warns Brazil banks not to apply sanctions locally
By Ricardo Brito and Brad Haynes BRASILIA (Reuters) -Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who recently had sanctions imposed on him by the U.S. government, told Reuters that courts could punish Brazilian financial institutions for seizing or blocking domestic assets in response to U.S. orders. Those remarks raise the stakes in a standoff that has hammered shares of Brazilian banks caught between U.S. sanctions and the orders of Brazil's highest court. In a late Tuesday interview from his office in Brasilia, Moraes granted that U.S. law enforcement regarding Brazilian banks that operate in the United States "falls under U.S. jurisdiction." "However, if those banks choose to apply that law domestically, they cannot do so — and may be penalized under Brazilian law," he added. His remarks underscore the potential consequences of a Monday ruling by fellow Supreme Court Justice Flavio Dino, who warned that foreign laws cannot be automatically applied in Brazil. That ruling was followed by a sharp rebuke from the U.S. State Department's Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, which warned on social media hours later that Moraes was "toxic" and that "non-U.S. persons must tread carefully: those providing material support to human rights abusers face sanctions risk themselves." The U.S. Treasury Department slapped the sanctions on Moraes last month under the Global Magnitsky Act, a law designed to impose economic penalties on foreigners deemed to have a record of corruption or human rights abuse. The order accused him of suppressing freedom of expression and leading politicized prosecutions, including against former President Jair Bolsonaro, a staunch Trump ally on trial before Brazil's Supreme Court on charges of plotting a coup to reverse his loss in the 2022 election. Bolsonaro has denied any wrongdoing and denounced the case as politically motivated. In his interview, Moraes said decisions by foreign courts and governments can only take effect in Brazil after validation through a domestic process. He said it is therefore not possible to seize assets, freeze funds or block the property of Brazilian citizens without following those legal steps. The global reach of the U.S. financial system means foreign banks often restrict a wider range of transactions to avoid secondary sanctions. Moraes said he was confident that the sanctions against him would be reversed via diplomatic channels or an eventual challenge in U.S. courts. But he acknowledged that for now they had put financial institutions in a bind. "This misuse of legal enforcement places financial institutions in a difficult position — not only Brazilian banks, but also their American partners," he said. "That is precisely why, I repeat, the diplomatic channel is important so this can be resolved quickly - to prevent misuse of a law that is important to fight terrorism, criminal organizations, international drug trafficking and human trafficking," he added. The U.S. State Department did not immediately respond to request for comment. Moraes had "engaged in serious human rights abuse," said a Treasury Department spokesperson. "Rather than concocting a fantasy fiction, de Moraes should stop carrying out arbitrary detentions and politicized prosecutions." NO CHOICE The clash could have serious consequences for Brazilian financial institutions, said two bankers in Brazil, who requested anonymity to discuss the matter candidly. Most large banks are supervised by the U.S. government in some way due to their international presence or exposure, either through a foreign branch or issuance of foreign securities, said the former director of an international bank in Brazil. The choice for these banks, under pressure from the U.S., may be to invite sanctioned clients to seek a different institution to keep their assets, the banker added. The director of a major Brazilian bank said that, in practice, Monday's court ruling means any action taken by Brazilian banks based on rules involving the U.S. Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, which oversees U.S. sanctions, will need approval from Brazil's Supreme Court. At the same time, he added, failing to comply with an OFAC decision could cut a bank off from the international financial system. "Brazil doesn't really have a choice," said the banker. "Given how interconnected everything is, and the disparity in economic power between the U.S. and Brazil, we're left in a position of subordination. There's not much we can do." He stressed that the court would need to come up with a solution "that doesn't put the financial system at risk." Shares of state-run lender Banco do Brasil, where most federal officials including judges receive salaries, fell 6% on Tuesday, the largest drop among Brazil's three biggest banks. The bank said in a Tuesday statement it was prepared to deal with "complex, sensitive" issues involving global regulations. Sign in to access your portfolio
