King Donald? Supreme Court grants Trump power to repeal laws at his whim
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump announces 'massive' Japan trade deal
Donald Trump announced Tuesday a "massive" trade deal with Japan, marking a key breakthrough for major US trade partners as they scramble to strike agreements before the end of the month. In an attempt to slash his country's colossal trade deficit, the US president has vowed to hit dozens of countries with punitive "reciprocal" tariffs if they do not hammer out a pact with Washington by August 1. The breakthrough makes Japan one of five countries to have signed an agreement -- along with Britain, Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines -- after Trump promised in April he would get "90 deals in 90 days". "We just completed a massive Deal with Japan, perhaps the largest Deal ever made," he wrote on his Truth Social platform. He said that under the deal, "Japan will invest, at my direction, $550 Billion Dollars into the United States, which will receive 90% of the Profits". He did not provide further details on the unusual investment plan, but said it "will create Hundreds of Thousands of Jobs". Japanese exports to the United States were already subject to a 10 percent tariff, which would have risen to 25 percent on August 1 without a deal. Duties of 25 percent on Japanese autos -- an industry accounting for eight percent of Japanese jobs -- were also already in place, plus 50 percent on steel and aluminium. Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba said that the autos levy had now been cut to 15 percent, sending Japanese car stocks soaring, with Toyota and Mitsubishi up around 14 percent each. "We are the first (country) in the world to reduce tariffs on automobiles and auto parts, with no limits on volume," he told reporters. "By protecting what needs to be protected, we continued the negotiations with an aim to reach an agreement that meets the national interest of both Japan and the United States," Ishiba added. "In this agreement with President Trump, I think we were able to realise such an agreement." - Rice imports - However, Japan's trade envoy Ryosei Akazawa, who secured the deal on his eighth visit to Washington, said the 50 percent tariffs on steel and aluminium would remain. Akazawa also said that increased defence spending by Japan -- something Trump has pressed for -- was not part of the agreement. Trump said Tuesday that Japan has also agreed to "open their Country to Trade including Cars and Trucks, Rice and certain other Agricultural Products, and other things". Rice imports are a sensitive issue in Japan, and Ishiba's government -- which lost its upper house majority in elections on Sunday -- had previously ruled out any concessions. Japan currently imports 770,000 tonnes of rice tariff-free under its World Trade Organization commitments, and Ishiba said it would import more US grain within this. Ishiba said Wednesday that the deal does not "sacrifice" Japan's agricultural sector. Tatsuo Yasunaga, the chair of Japan Foreign Trade Council welcomed the trade deal announcement but said the business community needed to see details to assess its impact. "I highly commend the fact that this major milestone has been achieved and dispelled the uncertainty that private companies had been concerned about," Yasunaga said. Naomi Omura, an 80-year-old voter, said it was "disappointing that Japan cannot act more strongly" towards the United States. Tetsuo Momiyama, 81, said that Ishiba "is finished... It's good timing for him to go." Reports claimed Wednesday that he aims to step down soon following the election debacle. - China talks - Trump has been under pressure to wrap up trade pacts after promising a flurry of deals ahead of his deadline. The White House on Tuesday also laid out details of a deal with Indonesia, which would see it ease critical mineral export restrictions and also face a 19 percent tariff, down from a threatened 32 percent. Trump also said that levies on the Philippines, another close strategic US ally, would be cut by one percentage point to 19 percent after hosting President Ferdinand Marcos. But negotiations are still ongoing with much larger US trading partners China, Canada, Mexico and the European Union. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Tuesday that he would meet his Chinese counterparts in Stockholm next week. Leaders of the world's two biggest economies imposed escalating, tit-for-tat levies on each other's exports earlier this year, reaching triple-digit levels. But in talks in Geneva in May they agreed to lower them temporarily until August 12. bur-stu/dan Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Jerome Powell should resign, top economist Mohamed El-Erian says, citing a scandal Trump hasn't even mentioned
In a surprising turn, top economist Mohamed El-Erian has broken with convention among financial leaders by publicly calling for Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell to resign. El-Erian's comments, issued via social media and elaborated in press interviews, are remarkable not only for their candor, but for their counterintuitive reasoning: El-Erian believes Powell should step aside to protect the institution's independence in the face of multiplying political attacks. Most financial leaders who are insisting that Powell resist the pressure he's facing from Trump are the exact opposite, citing central bank independence as the reason Powell must stay. As the White House has ratcheted up its criticism of Powell, speculation has grown about potential leadership changes at the Federal Reserve. Donald Trump has been outspoken in his demands that Powell cut interest rates, a concern that El-Erian shares. But the scandal advanced by the Trump administration over Powell's oversight of a $2.5 billion office renovation is not part of El-Erian's critique. El-Erian, who has been an inflation hawk for nearly all of the 2020s, largely agrees with the White House on inflation, even if they may be coming at it from different angles. Trump likely wants rate cuts as a way to spur the economy ahead of the 2026 elections, although Trump demanded rate cuts in similar fashion in the last decade, when both he and Powell were in their first terms. The cuts that eventually resulted surprised economists as inflation stayed under control for a time—but the surge in 2021 was the biggest since the early 1980s. El-Erian was on the record then and now about saying that Powell undermined the Fed's credibility on inflation throughout this episode. On Tuesday, he stated that if Powell were a CEO in the corporate world, he would have already been forced out over the central bank's recent stumbles. Among the missteps: the Fed's much-derided assertion in 2021–2022 that inflation was 'transitory,' which delayed rate hikes and contributed to price spikes; the 2022 'insider trading' scandal involving several senior Fed officials; and the 2023 banking crisis around the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, which prompted what El-Erian termed a 'damning' internal report. In the first regard, El-Erian was often critical of Powell's reference to 'transitory' inflation, calling it a 'protracted gross mischaracterisation' in a December 2022 op-ed for the Financial Times. At that time, Powell was awaiting an Inspector General report on stock trading during the pandemic by two central bank governors. They were ultimately cleared, but the watchdog chastised both of them—and indirectly Powell—for undermining public confidence in the central bank, the same topic with whic El-Erian is still concerned. Although Powell was never accused of wrongdoing regarding the trading controversy, the episode led to stricter rules for central bank leaders and further eroded public confidence. Finally, the collapse in Silicon Valley Bank was unrelated, but chief regulator Michael Barr criticized lax oversight in an April 2023 report, arguing that it was partially responsible for one of the biggest banking failures in American history. El-Erian, former CEO of PIMCO and current president of Queen's College, Cambridge, told Axios and other outlets that Powell should bow out to defend the credibility and autonomy of the central bank. 'If your objective is to protect the independence of the central bank,' he told Axios, 'then it's better that he step down than he stays and the attacks multiply.' El-Erian warned that further assaults could undermine trust in the Fed with serious economic consequences. A 'lame duck' chair, and more attacks to come Powell, whose term expires in May 2026, is in a weakened position, El-Erian argued. The announcement of his replacement is expected by year end, and with a limited ability to steer policy, he is essentially a 'lame duck.' El-Erian argued that continuing attacks—regardless of their origin—will escalate so long as Powell remains in the role, increasing the risk of lasting reputational harm to the Fed. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's comments on Monday, calling for an examination 'of the entire Federal Reserve institution,' only heightened El-Erian's concerns. 'That is a red flag,' he said, suggesting the administration is widening its criticism beyond Powell to target the Fed itself. El-Erian predicted that if these political threats to central bank independence persist, markets could see a weaker dollar, higher interest rates, and a more volatile yield curve—destabilizing the economy further. Independence versus political pressure Trump's criticism of Powell has also expanded to the cost and management of the Fed's $2.5 billion renovation of its historic Washington, D.C. headquarters. Trump and his administration have accused Powell of mismanaging the project and potentially violating oversight rules, describing the renovations as 'ostentatious' and possibly 'fraudulent.' Specific complaints have included claims about luxury features such as rooftop gardens, private dining rooms, and executive elevators—many of which Powell refuted as either standard building updates or mischaracterizations by the administration. Trump has suggested that Powell's handling of the office renovation could be sufficient grounds for removal, although no evidence of fraud has been presented. In contrast, economist El-Erian's opinion of the real scandal is based on institutional credibility and internal scandals. El-Erian points to a series of reputational crises under Powell's leadership, with special emphasis on a high-profile insider trading scandal involving several senior Fed officials. In 2021 and 2022, some key regional Fed presidents were revealed to have been trading securities during periods when they had privileged policy information. Although Powell himself was cleared of wrongdoing by an independent watchdog, El-Erian argues that these scandals have eroded public confidence and harmed the Fed's credibility. The economist emphasized that the best outcome would be for the attacks to cease and for Powell to serve out his term in peace—though he considers that highly unlikely. El-Erian said the best-case scenario is for Powell to stay and attacks on the Fed to end, but he doesn't see that happening, making clear his conviction that a voluntary departure by Powell could help stem the tide and limit further damage. For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing. This story was originally featured on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Trump Wants to Make It OK to Disappear People
In May, the United States flew a group of eight migrants to Djibouti, a small state in the Horn of Africa. For weeks, the men — who are from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, Vietnam and South Sudan — were detained in a converted shipping container on a U.S. military base. More than a month later, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the men, who had all been convicted of serious crimes, could be transferred to their final destination: South Sudan, a country on the brink of famine and civil war. Tom Homan, the border czar, acknowledged that he didn't know what happened to them once they were released from U.S. custody. 'As far as we're concerned,' he said, 'they're free.' Deporting foreign nationals to countries other than their homeland has quickly become a centerpiece of the Trump administration's immigration policy. Thousands of people have been sent to countries in the Western Hemisphere, including Costa Rica, El Salvador, Mexico and Panama. At a recent summit of West African leaders, President Trump pressed them to admit deportees from the United States, reportedly emphasizing that assisting in migration was essential to improving commercial ties with the United States. All told, administration officials have reached out to dozens of states to try to strike deals to accept deportees. The administration is making progress: Last week, it sent five men to the tiny, landlocked country of Eswatini in southern Africa after their home countries allegedly 'refused to take them back,' according to an assistant homeland security secretary, Tricia McLaughlin. The terms of the deal were not disclosed. In some ways, this is nothing new. It has become increasingly common for the world's most prosperous countries to relocate immigrants, asylum seekers and refugees to places with which they have little or no prior connection. Previous U.S. administrations from both parties have sought third-country detentions as easy fixes. In the 1990s, Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton both sent thousands of Haitian refugees to detention camps in Guantánamo Bay before forcibly repatriating most of them to Haiti. What is new about the Trump administration's deportation efforts, unlike previous European or even past U.S. attempts, is their breadth and scale, effectively transforming migrant expulsions into a tool for international leverage. By deporting foreign nationals to often unstable third countries, the Trump administration is not only creating a novel class of exiles with little hope of returning to either the United States or their country of origin, but also explicitly using these vulnerable populations as bargaining chips in a wider strategy of diplomatic and geopolitical deal-making. This strategy marks a significant evolution in a practice that has been gaining traction throughout the developed world. In the early 2000s, Australia devised the so-called Pacific Solution, an arrangement that diverted asylum seekers arriving by boat or intercepted at sea to holding centers in the island states of Nauru and Papua New Guinea in exchange for benefits, including development aid and financial support. In 2016, amid what was then the largest displacement of people in Europe since World War II, the European Union struck a deal that allowed it to send migrants arriving in Greece from Turkey through irregular means back to Turkey — to the tune of six billion euros. Some of these efforts have faced legal challenges. Starting in 2022, for example, the United Kingdom attempted to establish a program that would have automatically deported some asylum seekers and migrants entering the U.K. illegally to Rwanda, costing over half a billion pounds — more than 200 million of which were paid upfront. The British Supreme Court ruled that the policy was unlawful, and Britain's prime minister scrapped the plan last year. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
