Lawmakers explore ways to weaken state judges, upend landmark case law
Montana lawmakers are pushing to limit courts' authority to decide constitutionality.
Kansas legislators want to change how state Supreme Court justices are selected.
Oklahoma and other states are considering limiting judicial deference to government agencies.
TOPEKA, Kansas - In several Republican-led state legislatures, lawmakers are advancing measures to curb judicial authority, marking a growing power struggle between the courts and elected officials.
What's next
Proposals include limiting courts' ability to determine constitutionality, changing how judges are selected, and reducing judicial deference to government agencies.
While efforts to rein in the judiciary are not new, experts note that this latest wave comes as President Donald Trump faces multiple legal challenges, with his administration arguing that courts are overstepping their role through judicial activism.
What we know
A Montana legislative committee has advanced a bill that challenges the landmark 1803 Supreme Court ruling in Marbury v. Madison, which established judicial review—the courts' ability to decide whether laws are constitutional.
The bill, sponsored by Republican Rep. Lee Deming, claims that no single branch of government has the exclusive authority to determine constitutionality. It follows a series of Montana court rulings striking down GOP-backed laws, including restrictions on abortion access and a ban on gender-affirming care for minors.
Similar legislation is being considered in Kentucky, Tennessee, and West Virginia, according to Plural, a legislative tracking service.
What we don't know
It remains unclear whether these bills will pass or if they will withstand legal challenges. While many proposals to curb judicial authority have been introduced over the years, most fail to gain traction, said William Raftery, an analyst at the National Center for State Courts.
The backstory
Republican leaders in Kansas are reviving efforts to change how state Supreme Court justices are selected, citing frustration with rulings on public school funding, the death penalty, and abortion rights.
Currently, Kansas uses a merit-based system where a commission controlled by lawyers selects nominees for the governor to choose from. GOP lawmakers want to return to direct elections, a system Kansas used before 1960 and still followed in 22 states.
If lawmakers approve the change, voters would need to approve a constitutional amendment to implement it.
Dig deeper
In Oklahoma, a proposed bill would limit judges' ability to defer to government agencies when interpreting laws, a move that echoes a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that sought to curb administrative overreach.
At least 20 states have already adopted similar laws or court rulings, according to Ballotpedia.
Meanwhile, in Missouri, House Speaker Pro Tem Chad Perkins (R) proposed a bill aimed at removing a circuit court judge whose rulings he opposed.
The measure, which would reduce the number of judges in a particular judicial circuit from four to three, was seen as a direct move against Judge Cotton Walker, who had issued key rulings on marijuana legalization and abortion rights ballot measures.
Perkins later put the bill on hold, citing concerns over the circuit's case backlog, though he reiterated his displeasure with Judge Walker's rulings.
The Source
This report is based on Associated Press reporting by Geoff Mulvihill and John Hanna, analysis from the National Center for State Courts, and legislative tracking data from Plural and Ballotpedia. Details on specific state bills were sourced from Montana, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri legislative records. This story was reported from Los Angeles.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Laura Coates Uses Trump's Own Words to Shatter ‘Woke' Smithsonian Claims: ‘Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself, Mr. President'
In 2017, Trump called the Smithsonian's National Museum of African American History and Culture a "beautiful tribute to so many American heroes" CNN's Laura Coates took issue Tuesday night with President Donald Trump's repeated claims that the Smithsonian Institute has gone 'out of control' with woke content and used some of his own words from 2017 to prove him wrong. Trump took to Truth Social Tuesday to announce that he has instructed his attorneys to review the Smithsonian's museums. More from TheWrap Laura Coates Uses Trump's Own Words to Shatter 'Woke' Smithsonian Claims: 'Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself, Mr. President' | Video Trump's White House Lashes Out at Rosie O'Donnell Again in Response to Mark Hamill's Near Emigration 'Morning Joe' Warns Rep. Elise Stefanik's Home District Boos Are a 'Terrible Sign' for Republicans | Video Shonda Rhimes Says Self-Censorship Is Palpable as Networks Cower to Trump 'The Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL, where everything discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been,' Trump wrote. 'This Country cannot be WOKE, because WOKE IS BROKE.' Among the museums that Trump has targeted is the Smithsonian's National Museum of African American History and Culture, which Coates was quick to point out Tuesday. The CNN anchor was also quick to note that, contrary to his recent claims, Trump had nothing but good things to say about the museum in question after he toured it in 2017. To prove her point, Coates played a clip of the speech Trump gave following his visit. 'This museum is a beautiful tribute to so many American heroes. It's amazing to see,' Trump said at the time. 'We did a pretty comprehensive tour, but not comprehensive enough. So, [Smithsonian Secretary] Lonnie [Bunch III] I'll be back. I told you that. Because I could stay here for a lot longer, believe me. It's really incredible. This tour was a meaningful reminder of why we have to fight bigotry, intolerance, and hatred in all of its very ugly forms.' You can watch the clip yourself in the video below. For her part, Coates took particular issue with Trump's insistence that the museums his administration is reviewing focus only on suffering and oppression. 'Yes, it goes into the unvarnished truth of slavery in America, the brutal reality that millions endured and the impact that's still felt today,' Coates acknowledge about the National Museum of African American History and Culture. 'But the museum, if you actually go to it rather than just talk about it and see it on paper from a Truth Social post, it doesn't only focus on suffering. It is about resilience and achievement and celebration. Umbrella? History.' The CNN anchor noted that the museum highlights the achievements of Black icons like Muhammad Ali, Louis Armstrong, Jim Brown, Gabby Douglas and Carl Lewis. 'If that's woke, then maybe woke just means telling the whole story because every exhibition that I've just mentioned showcases exactly what Trump says that he wants: success, brightness, a look toward the future,' Coates argued. Responding to Trump's 2017 remark that the museum is a 'reminder of why we have to fight bigotry, intolerance, and hatred in all of its very ugly forms,' Coates concluded, '[I] couldn't have said it better myself, Mr. President.' The post Laura Coates Uses Trump's Own Words to Shatter 'Woke' Smithsonian Claims: 'Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself, Mr. President' | Video appeared first on TheWrap.
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Exclusive-Judge in US crosshairs warns Brazil banks not to apply sanctions locally
By Ricardo Brito and Brad Haynes BRASILIA (Reuters) -Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who recently had sanctions imposed on him by the U.S. government, told Reuters that courts could punish Brazilian financial institutions for seizing or blocking domestic assets in response to U.S. orders. Those remarks raise the stakes in a standoff that has hammered shares of Brazilian banks caught between U.S. sanctions and the orders of Brazil's highest court. In a late Tuesday interview from his office in Brasilia, Moraes granted that U.S. law enforcement regarding Brazilian banks that operate in the United States "falls under U.S. jurisdiction." "However, if those banks choose to apply that law domestically, they cannot do so — and may be penalized under Brazilian law," he added. His remarks underscore the potential consequences of a Monday ruling by fellow Supreme Court Justice Flavio Dino, who warned that foreign laws cannot be automatically applied in Brazil. That ruling was followed by a sharp rebuke from the U.S. State Department's Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, which warned on social media hours later that Moraes was "toxic" and that "non-U.S. persons must tread carefully: those providing material support to human rights abusers face sanctions risk themselves." The U.S. Treasury Department slapped the sanctions on Moraes last month under the Global Magnitsky Act, a law designed to impose economic penalties on foreigners deemed to have a record of corruption or human rights abuse. The order accused him of suppressing freedom of expression and leading politicized prosecutions, including against former President Jair Bolsonaro, a staunch Trump ally on trial before Brazil's Supreme Court on charges of plotting a coup to reverse his loss in the 2022 election. Bolsonaro has denied any wrongdoing and denounced the case as politically motivated. In his interview, Moraes said decisions by foreign courts and governments can only take effect in Brazil after validation through a domestic process. He said it is therefore not possible to seize assets, freeze funds or block the property of Brazilian citizens without following those legal steps. The global reach of the U.S. financial system means foreign banks often restrict a wider range of transactions to avoid secondary sanctions. Moraes said he was confident that the sanctions against him would be reversed via diplomatic channels or an eventual challenge in U.S. courts. But he acknowledged that for now they had put financial institutions in a bind. "This misuse of legal enforcement places financial institutions in a difficult position — not only Brazilian banks, but also their American partners," he said. "That is precisely why, I repeat, the diplomatic channel is important so this can be resolved quickly - to prevent misuse of a law that is important to fight terrorism, criminal organizations, international drug trafficking and human trafficking," he added. The U.S. State Department did not immediately respond to request for comment. Moraes had "engaged in serious human rights abuse," said a Treasury Department spokesperson. "Rather than concocting a fantasy fiction, de Moraes should stop carrying out arbitrary detentions and politicized prosecutions." NO CHOICE The clash could have serious consequences for Brazilian financial institutions, said two bankers in Brazil, who requested anonymity to discuss the matter candidly. Most large banks are supervised by the U.S. government in some way due to their international presence or exposure, either through a foreign branch or issuance of foreign securities, said the former director of an international bank in Brazil. The choice for these banks, under pressure from the U.S., may be to invite sanctioned clients to seek a different institution to keep their assets, the banker added. The director of a major Brazilian bank said that, in practice, Monday's court ruling means any action taken by Brazilian banks based on rules involving the U.S. Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, which oversees U.S. sanctions, will need approval from Brazil's Supreme Court. At the same time, he added, failing to comply with an OFAC decision could cut a bank off from the international financial system. "Brazil doesn't really have a choice," said the banker. "Given how interconnected everything is, and the disparity in economic power between the U.S. and Brazil, we're left in a position of subordination. There's not much we can do." He stressed that the court would need to come up with a solution "that doesn't put the financial system at risk." Shares of state-run lender Banco do Brasil, where most federal officials including judges receive salaries, fell 6% on Tuesday, the largest drop among Brazil's three biggest banks. The bank said in a Tuesday statement it was prepared to deal with "complex, sensitive" issues involving global regulations. Sign in to access your portfolio
New York Post
10 minutes ago
- New York Post
Democrats facing crisis as more than 2M voters leave party in four years: analysis
The Democratic Party is bleeding registered voters, suffering a 4.5 million swing against it that could take years to recover from, according to a new report. Between the 2020 and 2024 presidential elections, Democrats lost about 2.1 million voters across the 30 states that track registration by political party, according to a New York Times analysis of data gathered by the L2 tracking firm. Over the same period, the Republican Party gained 2.4 million registered voters. Officially, there are still more registered Democrats than Republicans nationwide, but that number is incomplete because blue states like California and New York allow voters to register by party — as does the District of Columbia — while reliably red states like Texas, Missouri and Ohio do not. Most alarmingly for Democrats, the decline is nationwide, with the US seeing more new voters registering with the GOP in 2024 for the first time in six years. Democrats also saw their registered voter advantage dwindle in four 2024 battleground states — Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina and Pennsylvania — all of which President Trump carried this past Nov. 5. Democrats lost about 2.1 million registered voters in the 30 states that track registration by political party. AP Michael Pruser, who tracks voter registration closely as the director of data science for Decision Desk HQ, warned that the numbers not only help explain Trump's victory last year — in which he became the first Republican presidential candidate to win the popular vote in 20 years — but also forecast significant headwinds for Democrats in next year's midterm elections as well as the 2028 presidential vote. 'I don't want to say, 'The death cycle of the Democratic Party,'' Pruser told the Times, 'but there seems to be no end to this.' 'There is no silver lining or cavalry coming across the hill. This is month after month, year after year,' he added. In North Carolina, Democrats lost 115,523 voters between the 2020 and 2024 election, with Republicans gaining more than 140,000 members and erasing the Dems' registration advantage, according to the L2 data. More new voters registered to be Republican than Democrat last year, the first time since 2018. Michael Nagle Democrats suffered similar losses in Arizona and Pennsylvania, while in Nevada — a state whose politics were long dominated by the Las Vegas-based Culinary Workers Union — the share of registered Democrats suffered the second-steepest plunge of those states measured between 2020 and 2024. (Only deep-red West Virginia saw more precipitous losses.). Even Democratic bastions like New York and California were not safe from voter erosion, with Dems losing 305,922 registered voters in the Empire State in between the two elections. In California, Democrats lost 680,556 voters between 2020 and 2024. All in all, Democrats went from enjoying an advantage of nearly 11 percentage points over Republicans in registered voter numbers in 2020 to just over six percentage points across the 30 states and DC in 2024, the Times found. Experts believe that the fall of new Democratic registrations can be linked to the growing number of voters choosing to be independents or unaffiliated, a trend that is sapping both parties' rolls. In 2018, more than one-third (34%) of new voter registrations nationwide were Democrats, while registered Republicans made up just 20% of new voters. As of last year, however, Republicans had erased that gap, with party supporters making up 29% of new voters, while Democrats made up 26% of new voters.
