Judges vs. Trump
Yesterday, the Supreme Court reminded President Trump that at least one branch of government would not bend the knee. The justices, in a 5-4 vote, rejected Trump's request to freeze $2 billion in foreign aid, a part of his effort to slash government spending and dismantle the 'deep state.' 'A bare majority of the court ruled against Mr. Trump on one of his signature projects,' my colleague Adam Liptak wrote. 'The president's many programs and plans, the order suggested, will face close scrutiny from a deeply divided court.'
That's the second time the Supreme Court has stopped Trump in his second term, although lower courts have blocked many more parts of his agenda. With Republicans in control of Congress, the courts remain the only serious obstacle to the president. Today's newsletter looks at the tangle of cases — and at what may happen if Trump ignores the rulings they produce.
The court battles
The Times is tracking dozens of lawsuits against the Trump administration. The legal challenges, in federal courts around the country, fit into four categories:
Government overhaul: With the help of Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, Trump is trying to downsize the federal government. His administration has tried to fire tens of thousands of civilian employees and dismantle entire agencies. The legal challenges contend that Trump didn't follow rules for firing certain employees, that he can't shut down agencies established by law without congressional approval and that DOGE has gone beyond what laws allow it to do.
Immigration: Trump has pushed his administration to end birthright citizenship, deport many more migrants, restrict asylum and withhold funds from cities that resist his policies. His critics say many of these moves violate laws or constitutional standards that protect immigrants' rights.
Reversing liberal policies: Trump has tried to curtail a host of liberal policies, including environmental rules, legal protections for transgender people, congestion pricing in New York and D.E.I. initiatives. Some of the lawsuits seek to overturn Trump's orders and resurrect these policies. Others focus more narrowly on restoring access to government data, such as information about climate change and H.I.V. treatments, that officials have taken offline.
Press freedom: Trump has blocked Associated Press reporters from official events because the A.P. style guide uses Gulf of Mexico instead of Gulf of America. The news service says this violates the First Amendment and the right to due process.
These cases start in district courts, which can pause a policy. Then both sides argue their positions in court, and the losing side can appeal the ruling to appeals courts and eventually the Supreme Court.
So far, 41 rulings have paused Trump's initiatives, at least temporarily. (Look at the whole list here.) Eventually, the Supreme Court could uphold or reverse Trump's actions permanently. But that process often takes years. The Trump administration could take advantage of that slowness to fire workers and reshape the government before the courts could react.
Will Trump listen?
Scholars argue about whether the country is in the midst of a constitutional crisis. But most experts, both liberal and conservative, agree that one thing will cross a line: if Trump ignores a Supreme Court ruling. At that point, the checks and balances that the constitutional system relies on could collapse.
The administration has already failed to comply with some lower court orders, such as one revoking a broad federal funding freeze. And some of Trump's supporters, including Vice President JD Vance, argue that the president should not listen to orders that constrain him. 'Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power,' Vance posted on social media. Vance has also adapted an apocryphal Andrew Jackson line: 'The chief justice has made his ruling; now let him enforce it.'
The implication is that courts have power only if people obey them. Judges don't have police officers or soldiers they can dispatch to enforce their rulings.
Trump so far has not written off judicial authority. In the instances when the administration hasn't followed court orders, it has pointed to alternate legal justifications for its actions. Previous presidents did similar things, such as when Joe Biden cited other legal avenues for student loan forgiveness after the Supreme Court ruled against his initial attempt.
Still, Trump doesn't like being told no. He has already stretched the powers of the presidency. He might believe that, in defying the courts, he can do it again.
Government Overhaul
More on the Trump Administration
Sanctuary City Hearing
More on Politics
War in Ukraine
China
More International News
Other Big Stories
Opinions
Trump fired 16 inspector generals at the start of his term. Times Opinion spoke to seven of them about how his move could introduce more fraud in the government.
Andrew Tate's prominence creates a culture that devalues young women, Jessica Grose writes.
Here's a column by Thomas Friedman on lessons from the Iraq war.
Yellow Bittern: The most divisive restaurant in London is open only for lunch.
The wizard of vinyl: In a sprawling Kansas factory, Chad Kassem is 'saving the world from bad sound.'
Ask Well: My partner snores. What should we do?
Lives Lived: Juan Hamilton was an aimless young ceramist when he turned up on the doorstep of the octogenarian painter Georgia O'Keeffe. He would become her caretaker, confidant and the object of sensational accusations as virtually the sole beneficiary of her will. He died at 79.
N.H.L.: The Washington Capitals' winger Alex Ovechkin is nine goals from Wayne Gretzky's record after scoring in the team's win over the New York Rangers.
N.F.L.: Players are on the move before free agency begins. The Chargers released Joey Bosa after nine seasons and the Seahawks wide receiver DK Metcalf requested a trade.
Men's college basketball: Connecticut, the two-time defending champions, defeated No. 20 Marquette, but there's arduous work ahead.
Gen Z fans pay much more for tickets than previous generations of concertgoers. In 1996, the average cost of a ticket to the year's biggest tours was $26 — adjusting for inflation, that's about $52 today. Last year's average was $136. How do 20-somethings afford live music? Some save; others go into debt.
More on culture
Sip a bone-warming carrot and cauliflower soup.
Stay balanced and injury-free as you age.
Try these fantasy sports apps.
Turn an iPad into a laptop with these keyboard cases.
Here is today's Spelling Bee. Yesterday's pangrams were awarding, drawing and warding.
And here are today's Mini Crossword, Wordle, Sudoku, Connections and Strands.
Thanks for spending part of your morning with The Times. See you tomorrow. — German
Sign up here to get this newsletter in your inbox. Reach our team at themorning@nytimes.com.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
25 minutes ago
- CNN
LA protesters and police in standoff as Trump doubles National Guard deployment
Update: Date: 18 min ago Title: Protesters outside US Embassy in Mexico City call for end to immigration raids across the border Content: Protesters in Mexico City staged a demonstration outside the US Embassy on Monday, calling for an end to sweeping immigration raids across the border. Video captured by Reuters showed people waving Mexican and US flags and burning an effigy resembling US President Donald Trump. 'We cannot remain silent as the Trump administration escalates its war on our communities in the United States,' said activist Alejandro Marinero from Migrant Organization Aztlan. 'Immigration policy is not a party issue, but a class issue. It is the tool of a system that seeks to divide us, exploit us and keep us in the shadows to ensure its profits at the expense of our humanity,' he told Reuters. Update: Date: 42 min ago Title: Thousands rally in San Francisco against ICE raids Content: Thousands of people marched through San Francisco's Civic Center and Mission neighborhoods on Monday night in protests that were 'overwhelmingly peaceful,' police said. Demonstrators rallied against Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids across the country and expressed solidarity with immigrant communities, CNN affiliate KGO reported. 'At the very end of the night, two small groups broke off and committed vandalism and other criminal acts,' the San Francisco Police Department said. Police said they detained multiple people who refused to comply with orders, made arrests, and are currently addressing one unresolved situation. 'I'm deeply concerned about what's going on in Los Angeles and all around the country. California, we are better because of our diversity, and for people to be torn away from school graduations, torn away from their children, that's not right. We have to come out here and tell people that's not right,' Holly Minch, who marched with a sign that read 'MELT ICE,' told KGO. The police said they coordinated with public safety agencies under the leadership of San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie to 'protect numerous First Amendment actions' in the affected neighborhoods. On Sunday, about 150 people, including some under the age of 18, were arrested near the Immigration Services building. Police said the arrests were made after protesters ignored dispersal orders and engaged in acts of violence and vandalism. Anti-ICE protests have popped up around the country, including in New York, Atlanta, Seattle, Dallas and Louisville. Update: Date: 57 min ago Title: Law enforcement helicopters have been circling above protests, flight tracker shows Content: Helicopters from the LAPD and Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department circled the areas of Boyle Heights and Little Tokyo throughout the day on Monday, according to data from Flightradar24. Earlier in the night, several police helicopters and a plane deployed by the California Highway Patrol were flying over the downtown area. By midnight, only two police helicopters remained airborne. Since protests erupted over the weekend, authorities have maintained a consistent presence in the air, with multiple helicopters sighted above protest zones all day yesterday. Update: Date: 1 hr 23 min ago Title: In pictures: Protesters clash with police in Downtown Los Angeles on Monday Content: Update: Date: 1 hr 23 min ago Title: Who is protesting in LA? Content: The protests appear divided into separate groups: progressive citizens who felt called to defend the rights of the undocumented, and protesters who appeared determined to drag the city into violent chaos. A senior law enforcement source told CNN that intelligence analysts have been conducting assessments on the crowds that gathered Sunday night. They found the many of the protesters were motivated by the recent immigration raids and disdain for the federal government's deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles. But some protesters, the intelligence source said, fit law enforcement profiles of so-called 'professional rioters,' who continually seek out confrontation with law enforcement. Defending 'La Raza': Unión del Barrio, an organization whose members are dedicated to defending the rights of 'la raza' — or Mexican and indigenous people — within the US, praised the efforts to fight back against ICE and other agencies. The Los Angeles community has 'the moral authority and universal right to defend our people from kidnappings and family separation,' a spokesman said. Toll on vulnerable communities: After being informed ICE agents were questioning workers at a Pasadena hotel, Pablo Alvarado, the co-executive director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, began calling for protests to protect vulnerable immigrant communities throughout the city. 'The Pasadena community showed up in large numbers and the message was loud and clear, we don't want to see your armored vehicles, men in masks coming to our communities to pick people up to rip families apart.' But, Alvarado added, he felt the violence that spread throughout the city in response to the raids was tainting their cause. Read the full story. Update: Date: 1 hr 23 min ago Title: Analysis: LA's crisis rests on what Trump does next Content: Donald Trump is talking and acting like an authoritarian as he escalates a constitutional clash with California over his migration crackdown. Much now depends on whether he's simply talking tough or if he's ready to take an already-tense nation across a fateful line in his zeal for strongman rule. On Monday, the president of the United States — the country seen as the world's top steward of democracy for 80 years — endorsed the arrest of the Democratic governor of the nation's most populous state. 'I think it would be a great thing,' Trump said. Trump's decision to deploy troops despite the opposition of California Gov. Gavin Newsom represented the latest example of his willingness to flex extraordinary executive power and marked a break with a first term when he was often talked out of his extreme impulses by establishment officials. For all Trump's multiple previous challenges to the rule of law and democracy, a grave new chapter may be opening. The trajectory of the crisis could now turn on whether Trump follows through on his dictator's theatrics by crossing lines not approached by modern presidents — notably on the use of troops in a law enforcement capacity. It may also rely on the restraint of protesters, who would play into Trump's hands by taking part in more unrest that creates alarming television pictures that can fuel Trump's dystopian rhetoric. Creating or escalating a law-and-order crisis or threat to public security and then using it to justify the use of the military on domestic soil would mirror the methodology of tyrannical leaders throughout history. Read the full analysis. Update: Date: 1 hr 23 min ago Title: Newsom hasn't done anything to warrant arrest, Trump's border czar says Content: White House border czar Tom Homan joined CNN's Kaitlan Collins to discuss comments President Donald Trump made suggesting Homan arrest California Governor Gavin Newsom.
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Editorial: Misusing the National Guard — Trump's LA interference with local policing
Always looking to provoke a crisis, Donald Trump has federalized 2,000 soldiers of the California National Guard against the wishes of the state's governor to put down a rebellion in Los Angeles that doesn't exist. And Trump is acting counter to federal law in doing so, which is no surprise for him. After demonstrators gathered in L.A. to protest ICE raids, some idiots in the crowd threw rocks at the immigration law enforcement officers. That's a crime and is not free speech. But the president used the sporadic violence, which was quickly quelled, to overstep his legal authority. On Saturday, he issued a directive claiming: 'To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' Then, latching on to his own word 'rebellion,' he invoked a federal statute, 10 U.S. Code § 12406, covering the National Guard. The law is brief. It says that 'Whenever 1) the United States is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation; 2) there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or 3) the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States; the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws.' There's no invasion, there's no rebellion and ICE is able to carry out its functions. And there is no lawlessness in the streets of L.A. that can't be contained by the local L.A. County sheriff's department, which has almost 10,000 sworn and armed deputies and the LAPD, which has almost 9,000 sworn and armed cops. If those law enforcement professionals need help, California Gov. Gavin Newsom could activate the National Guard. But Newsom didn't call up the Guard for backup because the soldiers weren't needed. That Trump went around Newsom, who he 'cleverly' calls 'Newscum,' is something that hasn't been done in 60 years, when Lyndon Johnson federalized the Alabama National Guard in 1965 because segregationist Gov. George Wallace wouldn't protect civil rights demonstrators. There, Wallace was trying to defy the federal courts and the federal government. This is nothing like that. Trump says 'It's about law and order,' but he's the one who is going against the law and against regular order. And he's also talking about bringing in active duty Marines from nearby Camp Pendleton. That is also against the law, 18 U.S. Code § 1385. This statue is just a single sentence: 'Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.' 'Posse comitatus,' or 'posse' for short, are non-law enforcement persons acting as such. The military cannot be so used on the word of even the president. Trump should relent and demobilize the Guardsmen he wrongly brought into L.A. and let local and state officials secure the streets. _____
CNBC
26 minutes ago
- CNBC
'Collateral damage': Fund managers lobby Congress over Section 899 to avert foreign investors leaving the U.S.
American fund managers are lobbying Congress over a provision tucked inside President Donald Trump's tax bill that they say could lead to foreign investors "quickly" pulling investments out of the U.S. The "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," which passed through the U.S. House of Representatives in May, aims to penalize foreign-owned firms operating in the U.S. and that are from countries with "unfair foreign taxes" under a provision known as Section 899. It is currently being considered by the Senate. The Investment Company Institute (ICI), which represents fund houses in the U.S., is lobbying Congress for an amendment as it warns the bill in its current form also impacts most foreign investments in U.S. stock markets, according to documents seen by CNBC. "In order to avoid the impact of section 899, portfolio investors are likely to retreat quickly from US equities, leading to capital outflows from the United States," the ICI said in a letter sent to Senator Mike Crapo, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, on June 5. "If sustained selling by foreign investors depresses US equity markets, this would harm both US companies and investors." Section 899 aims to introduce retaliatory tax measures against entities from countries that have levies such as the Digital Services Taxes and the OECD's global minimum tax rules. If signed into law, it could impact investors from the European Union, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Switzerland, among others. The tax would start at 5% and escalate by five percentage points annually to a maximum of 20%, on top of existing taxes, which vary by country and tax treaties. That could dent returns for foreign investors in U.S. equities. In the letter, the ICI also suggests that the U.S. fund management industry, which has collectively invested around $18 trillion in U.S. stock markets, would be "collateral damage" due to the impact of Section 899. "We do believe, however, that the current drafting of proposed section 899 should clarify its scope and avoid discouraging foreign investment in US equity markets through 'investment funds' such as US mutual funds and ETFs and their foreign counterparts (e.g., UCITS funds)," the ICI said. The letter to Senators goes on to say, "section 899 would penalize these funds and their shareholders by taxing passive income from US equity investments. To this end, investment funds would be collateral damage to the intended focus of section 899." Funds typically charge fees as a percentage of assets under management, and a withdrawal by foreign investors, over Section 899 concerns, could lead to lower earnings for the investment management firm. The Senate Finance Committee declined to comment, and Senator Mike Crapo's office did not respond to CNBC's request for comment. Foreign investors own $19 trillion in the U.S. stock markets, $7 trillion in U.S. government bonds, and $5 trillion in U.S. credit, according to data compiled by Apollo Global Management. The ICI said it's largely in support of the U.S. government's attempt to "protect US business interests overseas and to address discriminatory foreign taxes." However, it cautions that the current draft of the bill does the opposite. "Some foreign governments may actually cheer this capital flight from the United States because it benefits their local equity markets, which is not the behavioral incentive that Section 899 seeks to achieve," it said. Yuri Khodjamirian, chief investment officer for Tema ETFs, said investors in Europe who are focused on dividend-distributing U.S. companies would be "thinking quite carefully" about their holdings at this stage. "If suddenly you have to pay tax on that income, why would you hold that?" Khodjamirian questioned. Tema ETFs runs the American Reshoring ETF that is available to both U.S. and foreign investors. Tax experts suggest earnings paid out to foreign investors are more likely to be hit by Section 899 than capital gains and other methods of shareholder distributions. The Tema ETFs investment chief cautioned that the impact on the U.S. equities market would be relatively minimal as U.S. companies, say in the S&P 500, are typically not known for their dividends. "In the US, dividend yields are quite low. There's not a lot of companies paying. And most of the capital gets returned to share buybacks," Khodjamirian told CNBC. "Is that actually going to be that big of an issue then?"
