logo
King Donald? Supreme Court grants Trump power to repeal laws at his whim

King Donald? Supreme Court grants Trump power to repeal laws at his whim

The Hill16-07-2025
'The Executive has seized for itself the power to repeal federal law by way of mass terminations, in direct contravention of the Take Care Clause and our Constitution's separation of powers.'
Read that again. These are the words of Justice Sonia Sotomayor in a dissenting opinion to the Supreme Court's one-paragraph July 14 ruling, in which the majority basically held — without any justification or explanation whatsoever — that it's fine that America has become a land of lawlessness with power consolidated in one person.
President Trump is the law now.
The case is McMahon v. New York, and it involves Trump's stated plan to abolish the Department of Education by basically firing half the workforce so that the agency cannot function. Unlike Elon Musk's slash-and-burn DOGE experiment, this maneuver is not even thinly disguised by the pretense of government 'efficiency.' Trump just wants the Department of Education to go.
The trouble is that, as a matter of the Constitution's core separation of powers, Congress makes the laws. In 1979, Congress enacted the Department of Education Organization Act for purposes of 'ensuring access to equal educational opportunity for every individual.'
As Sotomayor explained in her dissent, which Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined, 'only Congress has the power to abolish the Department. The Executive's task, by contrast, is to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.'' By shutting down the Department of Education 'by executive fiat,' Trump is blatantly intruding on the powers of the legislature to make the laws while ignoring the constitutional mandate, and his oath of office, that he duly execute those laws.
Trump's plan ignores a bunch of other laws that the Department of Education is also responsible for executing, including laws governing federal grants for institutes of higher education; federal funding for kindergarten through high school (which was over $100 billion during the 2020-2021 school year, or 11 percent of the total funding for public K-12 schools across the country); and laws banning discrimination in federally-funded schools on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex and disability.
Then there's the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which, according to the department's current website, 'is a law that makes available a free appropriate education to eligible children with disabilities … and ensures special education and related services to those children, supports early services for infants and toddlers and their families, and awards competitive discretionary grants.' Seven million students across the country receive special education services supported by that law. Another statute the department administers, the Elementary and Student Education Act, provides financial assistance programs to tens of millions of low-income students, too.
All of these laws are now being gutted by the stroke of Trump's pen, as if he were a king.
No public debate in Congress, no mark-ups of bills amending the law, no ability for voters to call representatives to lobby for or against proposals to amend the Department of Education and the statutes it administers. No budget analyses, no media coverage of congressional horse-trading, no interviews of people from both parties on the steps of the Capitol, no hearing from public school officials or teachers or parents on whether this is a good idea.
None of that — because Trump simply snatched the power to make and repeal major federal legislation and programs that affect millions of American children for himself.
Worse, the majority on the Supreme Court is letting him do it. Like Trump, it made its ruling on-the-fly and behind closed doors — without full briefing, oral argument or a written decision explaining the justices' rationale for their end run around Article I of the Constitution (which lodges the lawmaking power in Congress) and Article II (which mandates that the president take care that the laws are faithfully executed).
The majority's silence left it to the dissenting justices to — once again — try and back-fill the majority's reasoning in a dissenting opinion so that the public has some sort of record about what is possibly going on here.
Sotomayor explains that Trump, shortly after taking office, condemned the Department of Education as a 'big con job' that he would 'like to close immediately.' A week into her tenure, Secretary of Education Linda McMahon eliminated 'nearly 50 percent of the Department's workforce' as 'the first step on the road to a total shutdown.' She closed entire offices — including the team responsible for administering bilingual education, every lawyer in the general counsel's office responsible for K-12 education funding and IDEA grants, numerous regional offices that deal with civil rights laws and most of the office that certifies schools to receive federal student financial aid.
On March 20, Trump signed an executive order with a directive titled 'Closing the Department of Education and Returning Authority to the States.' Twenty states and the District of Columbia sued, arguing that his actions violated the Take Care Clause and the Constitution's separation of powers, incapacitating core components of the Department of Education on which the states rely. A similar lawsuit by school districts and unions followed. The cases were combined, and a district court issued an injunction preserving the status quo, keeping the department and the nation's school system intact while the case was pending. An appeals court upheld that injunction.
Mind you, the district court issued its injunction after considering dozens of affidavits from Department of Education officials and recipients of federal funding describing how McMahon's mass terminations have already affected the ability to pay teachers, purchase materials and equipment, and enroll students on federal financial aid — and how full implantation of Trump's plan could be far worse. The government submitted no evidence in response.
Ignoring the record entirely and on an emergency motion filed by the administration, the Supreme Court's right-wing majority overturned the injunction, effectively handing Trump a win — just weeks before the start of the new school year — without even bothering to actually grapple with the Constitution, the lower court's findings or the dire impacts on millions of children and young adults that rely on the department's programs in order to get an education.
This sounds like a dystopian science fiction storyline that a bunch of Hollywood writers and producers dreamed up. But it's real. This is Trump's — and the Supreme Court's — America.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Apple set to dodge bulk of India tariffs
Apple set to dodge bulk of India tariffs

Yahoo

time8 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Apple set to dodge bulk of India tariffs

Apple (AAPL) is set to largely escape the Trump administration's upcoming promise of 50% tariff on goods made in India destined for the US. A White House official confirmed Wednesday that Apple's semiconductor-powered devices, which include its iPhone, will be unaffected by Trump's 25% 'reciprocal' tariffs set to go into effect Thursday. The same goes for an upcoming promise of an additional 25% levy related to India's use of Russian oil that is set to be in place in about 3 weeks' time. IPhones and other similar products will be subject to a separate tariff authority which has not yet been unveiled. Apple said during its most recent earnings call that it made the majority of its US-bound iPhones in India. The news comes after The White House announced that Apple will announce an additional $100 billion investment in US manufacturing during a 4:30 pm ET press event Wednesday. That's in addition to the $500 billion Apple said earlier this year it would invest in the country. Trump has criticized Apple's decision to move manufacturing from China to India and not the US, saying during his May trip to the Middle East that he had a 'little problem' with CEO Tim Cook. Other Trump administration officials have also lambasted Apple for not producing its phones in the US, with trade adviser Peter Navarro calling it the 'longest-running soap opera in Silicon Valley,' during a July interview with CNBC. But according to experts, it would take years for Apple to stand up a smartphone supply chain base in the US. What's more, there are no phone manufacturers in the country and not enough workers to fill the necessary roles. Todd Weaver, developer of Purism's Liberty Phone, a privacy-centric smartphone that uses US-built electronics, says it took his company years to set up the facilities and source the necessary components to ensure the phone's processing and communications features all come from America. Even so, he explained, the phone's body is still made overseas. Apple began expanding its supply chain beyond China following the lockdowns and disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. But it started specifically concentrating US iPhone manufacturing in India to avoid Trump's tariffs on Chinese goods. Apple hasn't been entirely immune from the impact of tariffs, though. In Q3, the company said it took an $800 million hit from Trump's levies and it expects an additional $1.1 billion in charges in the fourth quarter. While Apple might be able to dodge tariffs on goods out of India, the company isn't entirely out of the woods. The Trump administration is expected to unveil the results of its Section 232 investigation into semiconductor tariffs, which could impact everything from smartphones to automobiles. The exact timing for the tariff announcement is still up in the air, but Trump has said he could reveal them as soon as next week. Email Daniel Howley at dhowley@ Follow him on X/Twitter at @DanielHowley. Sign in to access your portfolio

Library of Congress Website Deleted Part of the Constitution That Trump Doesn't Like. Now They're Calling It a 'Coding Error'
Library of Congress Website Deleted Part of the Constitution That Trump Doesn't Like. Now They're Calling It a 'Coding Error'

Yahoo

time8 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Library of Congress Website Deleted Part of the Constitution That Trump Doesn't Like. Now They're Calling It a 'Coding Error'

The removed portions of the Constitution include clauses that limit Congress' power to suspend habeas corpus and forbid titles of nobility in the United StatesNEED TO KNOW Portions of the Constitution were deleted from the Library of Congress' website after President Donald Trump ousted the longtime librarian from her role in May The omitted portions of Article I cover limitations on Congress' ability to suspend habeas corpus and grant titles of nobility After internet users noticed the quiet omission, the Library of Congress claimed it was a "coding error"The Library of Congress removed two and a half sections of the Constitution from its website sometime after President Donald Trump ousted the library's longtime leader in May. In recent days, internet users noticed that portions of Article 1 were missing from the Library of Congress' Constitution Annotated website: Sections 9 and 10, and part of Section 8. Article 1 appeared on the site in full at the start of the summer, according to internet archives. On Aug. 6, the Library of Congress insisted that deletion of several clauses in Article 1 were the result of a website "coding error" and ensured the issue would be resolved in a timely manner. But despite the library's statement, some have continued to express suspicion given the timing of the removal and the specific clauses that were cut. Article 1 of the Constitution establishes the legislative branch of the federal government and details the various powers of Congress. Section 9, which focuses on the limitations of Congress' authority, notably includes a clause that Congress cannot suspend habeas corpus — which grants everyone in custody the right to challenge their detention in court — unless necessary for safety in moments of "rebellion or invasion." Trump's White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller told reporters in May that the administration is "actively looking at" suspending habeas corpus, per PBS, amid the government's mass detention and deportation of immigrants. Without habeas corpus, Trump's aggressive deportation program would have fewer roadblocks and move more quickly. Another constitutional clause that was removed from the Library of Congress' website included a line that bars Congress from offering Americans titles of nobility — a limitation that sought to safeguard the United States government from being influenced by European monarchies. During his second term starting in January, Trump has repeatedly referred to himself as a "king" multiple times, including through the White House's official social media. Trump's flirtation with the title inspired the sweeping "No Kings" protests on June 14 — Trump's 79th birthday — in opposition to his perceived abuse and wielding of government power. Meanwhile Section 10 of Article 1, which was also removed, restricts U.S. states from engaging in certain actions that could undermine the federal government's authority. The update to the Library of Congress' digital Constitution came shortly after Trump fired the longtime Librarian of Congress, Carla Hayden, in May. Hayden was appointed to a 10-year term in the role by former President Barack Obama and confirmed by the Senate in a 74-18 vote in 2016. At present, it's disputed who is serving as the acting Librarian of Congress. Following the removal of Hayden, Trump appointed Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche — his former criminal attorney — to the post, though the library staff chose to recognize Robert Newlen, who was functionally next in line for the job, as their new leader. Read the original article on People

UCLA says Trump administration has frozen $584 million in grants, threatening research
UCLA says Trump administration has frozen $584 million in grants, threatening research

Chicago Tribune

time9 minutes ago

  • Chicago Tribune

UCLA says Trump administration has frozen $584 million in grants, threatening research

The Trump administration has suspended $584 million in federal grants for the University of California, Los Angeles, nearly double the amount that was previously thought, the school's chancellor announced Wednesday. UCLA is the first public university whose federal grants have been targeted by the administration over allegations of civil rights violations related to antisemitism and affirmative action. The Trump administration has frozen or paused federal funding over similar allegations against private colleges. 'If these funds remain suspended, it will be devastating for UCLA and for Americans across the nation,' Chancellor Julio Frenk said Wednesday in a statement, noting the groundbreaking research that has come out of the university. The departments affected rely on funding from the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Energy, Frenk said. The U.S. Department of Education did not immediately respond to an email from The Associated Press requesting comment. The Trump administration recently announced the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division found UCLA violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 'by acting with deliberate indifference in creating a hostile educational environment for Jewish and Israeli students.' The announcement came as UCLA reached a $6 million settlement with three Jewish students and a Jewish professor who sued the university, arguing it violated their civil rights by allowing pro-Palestinian protesters in 2024 to block their access to classes and other areas on campus. The university has said that it is committed to campus safety and inclusivity and will continue to implement recommendations. The new UC president, James B. Milliken, said in a statement Wednesday that it has agreed to talks with the administration over the allegations against UCLA. 'These cuts do nothing to address antisemitism,' Milliken said. 'Moreover, the extensive work that UCLA and the entire University of California have taken to combat antisemitism has apparently been ignored.' Milliken said the 'cuts would be a death knell for innovative work that saves lives, grows our economy, and fortifies our national security. It is in our country's best interest that funding be restored.' As part of the lawsuit settlement, UCLA said it will contribute $2.3 million to eight organizations that combat antisemitism and support the university's Jewish community. It also has created an Office of Campus and Community Safety, instituting new policies to manage protests on campus. Frenk, whose Jewish father and grandparents fled Nazi Germany to Mexico and whose wife is the daughter of a Holocaust survivor, launched an initiative to combat antisemitism and anti-Israeli bias. Last week, Columbia agreed to pay $200 million as part of a settlement to resolve investigations into the government's allegations that the school violated federal antidiscrimination laws. The agreement also restores more than $400 million in research grants. The Trump administration plans to use its deal with Columbia as a template for other universities, with financial penalties that are now seen as an expectation.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store