Trump defeats Democrats' lawsuit over election commission independence
June 4 (Reuters) - A Washington, D.C. judge has dismissed the Democratic Party's lawsuit accusing U.S. President Donald Trump of violating federal election law by trying to assert control over the independent Federal Election Commission.
U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ruled on Tuesday night that three national Democratic committees lacked a "concrete and imminent injury" to justify suing now, because they did not show Trump would violate election law.
The lawsuit filed on February 28 was the Democratic Party's first against Trump during the Republican's second White House term. Hundreds of lawsuits challenging the administration's actions have been filed.
Neither the Democratic party nor its lawyers immediately responded to requests for comment on Wednesday. The White House did not immediately respond to a similar request.
Democrats challenged Trump's February 18 executive order giving the White House more control over traditionally independent agencies including the election commission, National Labor Relations Board and Securities and Exchange Commission.
They objected to language making Trump's and Attorney General Pam Bondi's views on questions of law "controlling" for federal employees performing their official duties, and bans executive branch employees from advancing contrary views.
The plaintiffs included the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
In a 14-page decision, Ali said White House lawyers assured that the administration would not invoke Trump's order to dictate election commission activity, and commissioners would not interpret the order as a command to vote a particular way.
Ali, an appointee of Democratic President Joe Biden, also found no imminent injury based on Democrats' claim they were "chilled" from pursuing campaign strategies because a Trump-controlled election commission might reject them.
"The court does not doubt that the committees would have cause for profound concern were the FEC's independence to be compromised," the judge wrote.
But he said Supreme Court precedent required the committees to show that their relationship with the bipartisan commission has changed or will change. "They have not done so," he said.
The election commission oversees elections and enforces campaign finance laws. Congress created it in 1974 in the wake of the Watergate scandal.
The case is Democratic National Committee et al v Trump et al, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, No. 25-00587.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Owen Jones: The UK media has ignored this hugely revealing scandal
And yet Benjamin Netanyahu – the Israeli prime minister subject to an International Criminal Court arrest warrant – has been accused of forging this alliance by the Israeli political class. And yet – once again – the Westminster media has overwhelmingly failed to cover this latest profoundly revealing scandal. Avigdor Lieberman is a far-right opposition leader who once served as Netanyahu's deputy prime minister, foreign minister and defence minister. This week, he publicly announced: 'The Israeli government is giving weapons to a group of criminals and felons, identified with Islamic State, at the direction of the prime minister.' Did Netanyahu come out swinging, accusing his opponent of antisemitism, as he did when another opposition leader, former Israeli general Yair Golan, declared that Israel was killing babies as a hobby? READ MORE: Patrick Harvie: Increased UK defence spending only makes war more likely He did not. Instead, Netanyahu bragged that 'Israel is working to defeat Hamas in various ways, on the recommendation of all heads of the security establishment'. In a video message, he clarified that Israel had 'activated clans in Gaza that oppose Hamas', shamelessly calling it 'a good thing' which was saving the lives of Israeli soldiers. 'What's wrong with that?' We're talking here about a militia headed by a man named Yasser Abu Shabab. He styles his faction as the 'Anti Terror Service', but it is a criminal gang operating in an area of Rafah firmly under Israeli military control. His own family has not only disowned him, but backed his execution. According to Palestinian analyst Muhammad Shehada, his militia is composed of 300 'drug dealers and criminals.' And here's the important detail. To justify imposing a total siege on Gaza, Israel claimed that Hamas was stealing humanitarian food. Among those pointing out this wasn't true was Cindy McCain, widow of the late hawkish Republican senator John McCain, and now director of the World Food Programme. But we do know that Shabab's Israel-backed gang has been stealing aid. As ever with the Israeli authorities: every accusation is a confession. This is just another plank of Israel's starvation policy. But again, the Western media has overwhelmingly failed to clearly spell out what Israel is actually doing. Having imposed a total siege on Gaza since March 2, Israel set up a US-backed shadow entity named the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation to explicitly supplant the UN. It hasn't just been rejected by every aid agency – even the US marine who heads it resigned on the basis it contradicted the basic principles of humanitarianism. The Foundation set three aid checkpoints in the south in an effort to concentrate Gaza's entire population into a confined area – a concentration camp. Too little aid was delivered, much of it unusable given the siege on cooking materials. But in any case, the Israeli military repeatedly fired on starving Palestinians. In the words of Tory MP Kit Malthouse, the UN system had been replaced with a 'shooting range, an abattoir'. But when the Israeli military massacred dozens of starving Palestinians, they deployed their usual strategy: deceive, deflect, deny, distort. Even though the shootings happened in an Israeli military zone, and despite the overwhelming evidence of Israeli lies, the Western media indulged Israeli claims that Hamas was responsible as if they were credible. CNN belatedly published a clear rebuttal of Israeli lies, but attention had already moved on. As ever, the Western media overall fail to allow Israeli responsibility for atrocities to stick. And yet now, even as Yair Lapid – the main opposition leader – states Netanyahu is 'giving weapons to organisations close to ISIS in Gaza', this latest plank of Israel's starvation strategy barely gets any coverage. This is despite Israel's 'Hamas is ISIS' campaign long being used to justify the genocide. This all fits a classic pattern, of course. Israel encouraged the rise of Hamas in the 1980s in order to undermine its public enemy number one at the time, Yasser Arafat's Fatah. More recently, Netanyahu worked with Qatar to transfer money to prop up Hamas – with the hope of dividing the Palestinian nation and movement so an independent state was impossible. Remember too how the West armed and backed the Mujahideen against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s, playing a crucial role in creating the global Islamist fundamentalist movement. You would think the Western media might take an interest given the precedents. It is true that there is a shift taking place. Israeli spokespeople are suddenly being taken apart on mainstream television. Sky News is demanding the Prime Minister answer if genocide is taking place. But the media narrative still has not clearly shifted to reality – that is, a crime of historic proportions is being facilitated by Western governments, which means questions should be focused on 'how can this crime be stopped, and perpetrators held to justice' rather than 'is Israel doing something very bad here?' The latter is an improvement on where the narrative was stuck for so long – which was essentially 'Israel is waging a war of self-defence', with a side debate about whether the 'response' was 'proportionate'. What is clear is that an understanding is creeping into the political and media elites that a reckoning is coming, where those who facilitated this abomination will be forced to answer for what they did and what they didn't do. Time is running out.
Daily Record
an hour ago
- Daily Record
Donald Trump and Elon Musk feud is very dangerous for the President
The political alliance between Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk has disfigured US politics. Musk helping bankroll Trump's second election victory was an example of money buying power. Being handed a job as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to cut spending was also wrong on a number of levels. It reeked of a massive favour to a donor and led to the dodgy practice of unaccountable allies of Musk cutting government programmes. But both individuals are ego maniacs and it was only a matter of time before they fell out spectacularly. Musk is unhappy at a Trump tax bill he believes will be financially ruinous. Sniping then led to Musk making the incendiary claim the president's name appears in the notorious Jeffrey Epstein files. Few things are more damaging reputationally than being linked to the late Epstein - just ask Prince Andrew. This developing feud between Trump and his former pal Musk is dangerous for the President. The Tesla co-founder has power and influence, both politically and in the corporate world, and he seems intent on doing damage. A positive step for the world would be if both men cancelled themselves out through their bickering. The US is known as a land of opportunity but we are in a situation where a small number of billionaires wield disproportionate power. People like Musk should be paying more in tax and held to account for the cuts he was allowed to make in government. Trump is already a lame duck president and Americans must look to a time when he is no longer in charge. Weapons in court The proliferation of weapons on our streets is bad enough. But it beggars belief that thousands of blades, guns and bullets have been seized in Scottish courtrooms in the last year as our investigation reveals. The motivation of those who would attempt to enter a court while armed is not clear. Do they think they need protection or is it to dish out retribution? Whatever the reason, it is vital courts are safe places for justice to be carried out without fear for anyone's safety. People should be able to expect to attend court as an employee, witness or accused without being worried about the threat of violence. Those sinister or stupid enough to believe they can carry weapons into a court of law should be left in no doubt their conduct is unacceptable. They should be hammered by the courts they seek to undermine.
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
New risks emerge as America becomes less attractive
For decades, international investors have treated US government bonds as the safest place for their money. A long bull market in shares has been supported by American bonds and a sound US dollar. Since the global financial crisis of 2008, the underpinning of a 'safe haven' has helped stock markets to cope with other uncertainties. Now, investors are demanding much higher returns to lend money to the US government long-term. America is becoming less attractive to global investors at a time when its government needs them for finance more than ever. There is plenty to be nervous about. The US government is spending far more than it takes in, with the deficit up this year. Trump's spending and tax cut plans are likely to add to the US national debt over the next decade. And the US dollar has fallen to its lowest level in almost three years. US business confidence is weak, with the full impact of the supply turmoil yet to bite. Many manufacturers had stockpiled goods and components ahead of Trump's tariffs and import controls, but this buffer will soon be exhausted. May's stock market rally might seem reassuring on the surface. Major US technology companies like Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, and Nvidia delivered strong earnings and drove most of the market gains. The biggest seven tech companies alone were responsible for more than half of the US stock market's rise in May. But these trading results do not yet reflect the full impact of the trade war and supply changes. Analysts expect slower earnings growth for these businesses over the next year. Trump still plans further action, and the tariffs to date will produce significant adverse effects; higher consumer prices, lower business investment and lower economic growth. Read more: Perhaps most worrying for investors is the inflation risk building up worldwide. As global tensions rise, governments will spend more on defence, with limited scope for tax increases. Business costs will also increase, as trade disputes continue to disrupt how goods move around the world. Global borrowing costs could force central banks to keep interest rates higher for longer. The Governor of the Bank of England has warned that interest rate cuts are now more uncertain. There are signs that the tension between governments that want to spend more and nervous international lenders is also playing out in the UK, EU and Japan. British government bonds – gilts- are already seeing pressure as investors become more choosy about lending to governments anywhere. The OECD report this month warned that weak consumer confidence and fragile public finances leave the UK vulnerable to shocks. Appeasing lenders by cutting spending or raising taxes would hit economic growth. The end of US exceptionalism, linked to the declining role of the US dollar as a reserve currency, may be a gradual process as it was for the UK. There is still growth in many major US businesses and the US stock market is by far the most liquid globally. Shares have a record of coping better than bonds with rising inflation and there is value is stock markets outside the US. But we may be seeing the end of an era when investors could pay less attention to currency movements. And, although government bonds have a role in diversifying portfolios along with a spread of investments internationally, it is harder now to escape geopolitical risks. The recent stock market rebound may give opportunity to rebalance portfolios. Colin McLean is a director of Barnton Capital
