NC Senate passes bill barring AG Jeff Jackson from challenging Trump's executive orders
The North Carolina Senate passed a bill blocking Attorney General Jeff Jackson from challenging President Donald Trump's executive orders Tuesday afternoon amid a flurry of constitutional objections to the administration's conduct.
The proposal, known as Senate Bill 58, passed the Senate on its third reading by a margin of 29-19 after a previous successful vote on March 5, with all Republicans present voting in favor and all Democrats present voting against. It would prohibit Jackson or any future attorney general from filing any action or advancing any argument that would seek to invalidate a presidential executive order.
Sen. Terence Everitt (D-Granville) proposed an amendment to the bill that would have delayed implementation for four years, until the next opportunity to vote on North Carolina's attorney general — on the grounds that the voters elected Jeff Jackson with the understanding that he would have the power to challenge executive actions.
'Jeff Jackson clearly won the AG position in North Carolina,' Everitt said. 'Now I did not make it to a lot of the Trump rallies, so I don't know exactly what he was running on, but I did hear Jeff Jackson talk about defending North Carolina and its interests, and that's what folks voted for — for him to be a check on the federal government.'
Sen. Graig Meyer (D-Orange) thanked Jackson for challenging Trump's federal funding freeze and obtaining a preliminary injunction saving 'billions of dollars' and 'thousands of jobs' in the state. He noted that the order halting that freeze only does so for the states that were plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit — were Jackson unable to challenge the executive order, the state would still be subject to a freeze on federal spending.
'We should not take away the Attorney General's ability to represent the citizens of the state of North Carolina when he has the opportunity to defend our state for jobs, for funding, for healthcare, for things that our people desperately need,' Meyer said.
Jackson wrote in a March 6 statement on social media that North Carolina 'needs an Attorney General who has the authority to challenge unlawful executive orders.'
'We won an injunction against an order that would have cut hundreds of millions in research funding from our public universities and research institutions,' Jackson wrote. 'It was a reminder that an important part of this job is being a shield against unlawful federal acts that would undercut our economy and hurt our future. For the good of our state, that shield should remain in place.'
The amendment to delay enactment of the bill failed, but a substitute amendment tasking Jackson with investigating the impersonation of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents offered up by Sen. Warren Daniel (R-Caldwell) succeeded, also by a 29-19 vote.
Drawing on an earlier proposal by Senate Democrats to raise the penalty for impersonating members of law enforcement, the change directs Jackson to compile a study on how many such violations have occurred in the last four years and specifically, how many people have been convicted for impersonating ICE agents.
'We agree with the policy direction of looking at criminal impersonating ICE agents,' Daniel said. 'It will refocus the Attorney General's efforts on his core job, leading law enforcement in our state.'
Daniel declined to answer a question on the floor as to whether he would support raising the penalty for impersonation of a law enforcement officer, responding instead that it 'depends on the results of the study.'
The bill will now be sent to the state House of Representatives for a vote, setting up the first major test of North Carolina Republicans' hold on the lower house of the state legislature. Should Governor Josh Stein veto the bill, support from all Republicans in the House may not be enough to pass it over his objection depending on Democratic attendance and votes — the state House GOP has just under the number of members required to meet the three-fifths threshold to overcome a gubernatorial veto.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Speaker Johnson vows to stop California's redistricting push — but ignores Texas doing the same
House Speaker Mike Johnson says he plans to derail California's proposed congressional map after Governor Gavin Newsom unveiled a proposal to redraw the state's electoral boundaries. Newsom and California Democrats proposed new congressional lines on Friday in an attempt to eliminate potential gains in Texas, where Republicans backed by Donald Trump launched a nationwide redistricting battle with nakedly partisan ambitions ahead of midterm elections in 2026. Johnson accused Democrats of an 'illegal power grab.' 'Gavin Newsom should spend less time trampling his state's laws for a blatant power grab, and more time working to change the disastrous, far-left policies that are destroying California,' Johnson wrote Monday. 'Newsom obviously wants to launch a presidential campaign on the backs of disenfranchised California voters, but it will not work.' But unlike California, Texas lawmakers in the state legislature only need to vote on the maps before they are signed into law by Governor Gregg Abbott. Newsom, meanwhile, must hold a special election this fall so voters can decide whether to suspend the state's independent redistricting commission until the end of the decade to advance the new map. Johnson's statement followed the return of a group of Texas Democrats who left the state to break quorum in the state House, leaving Republicans without enough members present to vote on legislation during a special 30-day legislative session that was requested by Abbott. Dozens of Texas Democrats declared victory on Monday after staying out of the state for more than two weeks, blocking Republicans' Trump-led gerrymandering campaign. But redistricting is on the agenda for a second special session. Texas Republicans are expected to quickly take up — and pass — a new congressional map that would create five more districts likely to elect Republican candidates, which would give the GOP 30 of the state's 38 seats in Congress. In a statement on Monday, the Texas House Democratic Caucus said that members returned 'to launch the next phase' in the redistricting battle. Democrats' return to the state will allow them to create the 'legal record necessary to defeat this racist map in court, take our message to communities across the state and country, and inspire legislators across the country how to fight these undemocratic redistricting schemes in their own statehouses,' Texas House of Representatives Minority Leader Gene Wu said in a statement. GOP lawmakers were explicit that the new map was designed to improve 'political performance,' an act of political or partisan gerrymandering — in which a controlling party carves out maps to 'pack' likely opponents into a few districts, or 'cracks' them across multiple districts, thereby diluting their voting power. Critics accused Republicans of gerrymandering a map on racial lines, effectively letting Republicans choose their voters rather than the other way around. While out of the state, Abbott and state Attorney General Ken Paxton and GOP members of Congress put pressure on law enforcement to haul absent lawmakers back to the state capital in Austin. 'We killed the corrupt special session, withstood unprecedented surveillance and intimidation, and rallied Democrats nationwide to join this existential fight for fair representation — reshaping the entire 2026 landscape,' Wu said. California and Texas, the nation's two most populous states, remain at the forefront of the brewing redistricting war, as Trump pushes Republicans to redraw electoral lines for control of the House of Representatives to avoid a repeat of 2018 midterm elections — when Democrats regained control of Congress and impeached him twice. Democrats — who accused Republicans of illegally diluting the voting strength of Black and Latino voters — are planning to retaliate, triggering a race to reshape the electoral map by the time Americans cast their ballots in 2026. Newsom has stressed that bypassing the state's redistricting commission would be temporary, and that the state would only redraw its congressional boundaries if Texas shot first. At a rally in Los Angeles last week, Newsom said Trump is 'trying to rig the system' and, 'as a consequence, we need to disabuse ourselves of the way things have been done.' 'We have got to recognize the cards that have been dealt,' Newsom said. 'And we have got to meet fire with fire.' Johnson called Newsom's plans a 'slap in the face to Californians who overwhelmingly support' the state's redistricting commission. 'Unlike other states, California must shred its own Constitution to succeed in its desperate gambit to 'end the Trump presidency.' Voters in California and across the nation see through this partisan stunt,' he said. Johnson said his office and the National Republican Congressional Committee will 'use every measure and resource possible' to take on California. The Republicans' congressional campaign arm criticized Newsom's move, accusing the governor of 'shredding California's Constitution and disenfranchising voters to prop up his Presidential ambitions.' 'The NRCC is prepared to fight this illegal power grab in the courts and at the ballot box to stop Newsom in his tracks,' chairman Richard Hudson said last week.
The Hill
16 minutes ago
- The Hill
Bill Barr deposition kicks off House GOP's Epstein probe
Former Attorney General Bill Barr answered questions about Jeffrey Epstein in a Monday deposition with the House Oversight Committee that kicked off the panel's probe into matters relating to the late sex offender — an interview that fueled Republican defenses of President Trump while leaving the panel's Democrats hoping to call additional witnesses. Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), the panel's chair who was present for the first hours of the deposition, told reporters that Barr testified that he did not know of any information that would implicate President Trump. 'What Attorney General Barr testified in there was that he never had conversations with President Trump pertaining to a client list,' Comer said. 'He didn't know anything about a client list. He said that he had never seen anything that would implicate President Trump in any of this, and that he believed if there had been anything pertaining to President Trump with respect to the Epstein list, that he felt like the Biden administration would have probably leaked it out.' Asked about reporting from the Wall Street Journal that Attorney General Pam Bondi had told Trump that he was mentioned in the Epstein files, Comer said Barr talked about how 'you go over everyone that you've ever been in communication with, or whatever, that doesn't implicate you, as far as being guilty.' Democrats on the panel who sat in on the deposition, meanwhile, asserted that they were taking the investigation more seriously than the Republicans. 'I think the Democratic side is doing most of the heavy lifting. I don't think we're learning much from the questioning from the House Republicans. It doesn't seem like this is something where they are truly caring about the victims and about trying to get to the bottom of what's happening,' Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-Va.) said. 'It seems like they are going through the motions, and they want people to believe that they are digging in,' Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) added about her Republican counterparts. 'But at the end of the day, I don't think that we've learned anything through the Republican questioning that you couldn't find in one of the articles that most likely your outlets have printed.' Comer in response said: 'It's unfortunate the Democrats are trying to, seems to me, politicize this, when you look at the basis of this, horrific crimes against young girls. And of course, the Democrats' goal is to try to dig up some type of dirt on President Trump.' The panel's Epstein investigation was spurred by the furor that followed the Department of Justice and FBI releasing a memo in July saying that it would not release any more information from the so-called 'Epstein files.' The announcement further fueled conspiracy theories that the government is shielding powerful individuals who may have been involved with Epstein's abuse of young women and underage girls. Barr is one of 10 high-profile former federal officials who the Oversight panel subpoenaed as it looks into the Epstein matter, pursuant to a Republican-led motion that came as Democrats on the panel also successfully moved to subpoena the Justice Department for the 'full, unredacted Epstein files.' Deposition dates are also set for former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — who, like president Trump, had socialized with Epstein — and other former attorneys general and FBI directors going back to the first prosecution of Epstein in 2008. Barr was attorney general in President Trump's first term when Epstein was arrested on federal charges of sex trafficking minors in 2019, and when died in his prison cell later that year in what federal authorities have repeatedly said was a suicide. He was also attorney general when Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's former girlfriend and associate, was arrested on federal sex trafficking charges in 2020. Maxwell was later convicted and is currently in prison. Crockett said that the questioning led her to want to seek more information from investigators in the Southern District of New York and from former Labor Secretary Alex Acosta, who was the prosecutor who handled Epstein's much-criticized plea deal in 2008 and was not one of the former officials subpoenaed pursuant to the Republican-led motion in July. Comer indicated he was open to calling more witnesses when asked about the possibility of bringing in Acosta. 'We'll bring in everyone what we think can add information to the investigation. This is a serious investigation, this is a sincere investigation. I hope this will be a bipartisan investigation,' Comer said. The next deadline in the panel's investigation is Tuesday, the date by which it directed the Department of Justice to deliver all documents and communications relating to its Epstein investigation. Comer indicated that the Tuesday deadline could be pushed back. 'We're having really good conversations. You have to understand how many, you can imagine, how many documents there are,' Comer said. 'I think we'll receive the documents very soon,' Comer added, saying 'we're working together in a good faith effort.' Crockett said that if the DOJ does not comply with the deadline, Democratic leadership will talk about how to respond. 'I fully anticipate that they should at least try to substantially convey the vast majority of the request,' Crockett said. 'Because that is one of the things that the court will look at, if we have to go so far as to try to seek enforcement on this, is whether or not there was substantial compliance.' The Oversight panel has also subpoenaed Maxwell, but Comer has agreed to delay deposing her until after the Supreme Court considers her petition to overturn her conviction for sex trafficking. The Justice Department, meanwhile, has made new efforts to reveal previously unseen information — despite the president himself dismissing the Epstein saga as a 'hoax.' Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche sat down with Maxwell to try to get new information. The DOJ also made motions to unseal grand jury testimony transcripts from the Epstein case and from Maxwell's case, but both were denied.
The Hill
16 minutes ago
- The Hill
Congress must correct an injustice facing combat-injured veterans
This month marks the fourth anniversary of a dreadful event — the attack at Abbey Gate in Afghanistan where 13 service members were killed and 45 wounded in our disastrous withdrawal from that country. The event also serves as a reminder of an injustice that effects our injured combat veterans — an injustice that Congress must correct now. Under current policy, 54,000 combat-injured veterans who are forced to medically retire with less than 20 years of service lose a dollar of earned Defense Department retirement pay for every dollar they receive in Veterans Affairs disability pay — an unjust offset that essentially serves as a ' wounded veterans tax.' Reducing the retirement pay of a combat-disabled veteran to save money in the Defense Department personnel account is simply wrong. Saving money on the backs of our service members is not how a nation should treat those who volunteer to represent their country and risk life and limb. This injustice can be remedied by passing the Major Richard Star Act. The bill is named in honor of Major Richard Star, a U.S. Army veteran who died after being diagnosed with lung cancer linked to toxic burn pit exposure. Military retirement pay is earned through years of service. Disability pay is compensation intended to help make up income veterans might lose in the future due to service-related injuries or health conditions. Reducing one because a combat-injured veteran receives another is not in line with the purpose of either earned benefit. Many detractors of the Major Richard Star Act say the bill is too expensive at an estimated $8 billion over 10 years. This represents 0.1 percent of the current Defense Department budget — a small price to pay for compensating veterans. 'Let me say this to the 'cost cutters' of the world,' said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a strong supporter of the act. 'We're coming together on a bipartisan basis. You can 'slash and trash' elsewhere, but not on the backs of our heroes.' Despite the Major Richard Star Act's widespread bipartisan support each year in both the House and Senate, the legislation has yet to be included in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). This year the proposed legislation currently has 76 Senate co-sponsors and 298 House co-sponsors. It remains one of the most co-sponsored bills in either chamber. Last year the proposed legislation had 74 co-sponsors in the Senate and 326 in the House. It's time for Congress to put these sentiments into action and move forward with this long-sought fix on behalf of tens of thousands of combat-injured military retirees. A few weeks ago, Blumenthal, along with Sens. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), announced they are filing The Richard Star Act as an amendment to the annual must-pass National Defense Authorization Act. Blumenthal said passage of the legislation would correct one of the ' deepest injustices in our present veterans' disability system.' He said veterans 'are being penalized for being wounded….it's about simple justice and fairness.' How does a piece of legislation that will correct a clear injustice that has garnered so much support in both the Senate and House fall apart each year? There is an apparent 'say-do gap' for many lawmakers — lawmakers who 'say' they support the bill when it is proposed but who fail to raise their hand and vote yes and 'do.' Political leaders such as Blumenthal, Crapo and Warren are telling their colleagues to 'do' what they 'say' about supporting a piece of legislation. Hopefully, partisanship is not a consideration on this issue. Partisanship has absolutely no place in deciding how to properly compensate veterans who were injured in a war, doing what their country asked them to do. A perfect example is Army veteran Dan Nevins who was forced to retire after losing both his legs in combat in Iraq. After 36 surgeries and an 18-month stay at Walter Reed National Medical Center, and a painful and lengthy recovery process, Nevins soon discovered that he was prohibited from receiving both his full retirement pay and disability compensation. Nevins says his message to Congress is simple: honor the country's commitment to veterans. 'We should keep our promises,' he says. Keeping the all-volunteer force strong requires meaningful support of the warfighter. Those in uniform must understand that our nation will keep its promises and not attempt to cut costs by unfairly limiting their service-earned benefits. Passing this legislation would serve as a message that those in Congress intend to keep this promise — not just for current veterans but for future generations as well. Tom Jurkowsky is a retired Navy rear admiral who served on active duty for 31 years and a board member of the Military Officers Association of America. He is the author of 'The Secret Sauce for Organizational Success: Communications and Leadership on the Same Page.' He has served as an adjunct instructor at Anne Arundel Community College in Annapolis, Md.
