Latest news with #ArticleIII
Time Magazine
a day ago
- Politics
- Time Magazine
Exclusive: Inside the Planning for Trump's Next Supreme Court Nominee
White House officials and a close circle of conservative lawyers are preparing for President Donald Trump to be able to hit the ground running if a Supreme Court vacancy opens up during the remaining three and a half years of his second term, according to sources inside and outside the White House. The discussions are in early stages and focus on finding a nominee in the mold of Samuel Alito, 75, and Clarence Thomas, 77, the two oldest justices, both of whom are considered stalwart conservative jurists who have taken narrow interpretations of the Constitutional text while backing an expansive view of Presidential power. Shortlists of judges are circulating among Trump allies as they debate who can be best trusted to stick with the Court's conservative wing during an appointment that could last decades. 'We are looking for people in the mold of Alito, Clarence Thomas and the late Scalia,' said a White House official familiar with the process, referring to Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in 2016. The official said it was 'premature' to say the White House was getting ready for a vacancy. Republicans currently control the Senate, which must confirm any nominee to the court. The party also controlled the Senate throughout Trump's first term, allowing Trump to appoint three Justices—Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett— who were all well-regarded in conservative legal circles. Advisors close to Trump want to set the stage for the smoothest possible confirmation process and avoid the high drama of Kavanaugh's hearings in 2018 that focused on allegations of sexual assault. Conservative lawyers around Trump are also feeling burned by a handful of recent decisions in which Barrett joined liberal members of the court and want to ensure the next nominee is someone who won't veer from the conservative bloc. 'There's a lot of anger at Amy Coney Barrett coming from the MAGA movement,' says Benjamin Wittes, editor in chief of Lawfare and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. 'I think you can imagine a very different type of nominee than we've had from Trump in the past.' Trump will make the final decision on who to put forward for Senate confirmation, says a White House official. Key players in his administration who would be involved in vetting candidates would be Attorney General Pam Bondi, Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, White House Counsel David Warrington and Steve Kenny, the deputy White House counsel for nominations. Mike Davis, a conservative lawyer and bare-knuckle Trump defender, is also expected to be an influential voice in the process. 'Justice Thomas and Justice Alito are irreplaceable and I hope they do not retire anytime soon,' Davis tells TIME. Just in case, Davis says he has given the Trump White House a short list of 'bold and fearless' nominees for the Supreme Court, and should there be a vacancy, he plans to 'play an outside supporting role' to the White House efforts. Davis, who is founder of the Article III project, a conservative judicial advocacy group, would not confirm which names are on his list. 'I have provided my recommended list to the President and his team and I am not going to discuss that list with anyone other than them,' says Davis. He stressed that 'the President and the President alone will decide his judicial nominees.' Two people familiar with the White House vetting process said that the current front runners for a potential Supreme Court vacancy are Andrew Oldham, a 5th circuit judge in Texas, and Neomi Rao, who sits on the influential District of Columbia Circuit Court. Oldham was previously general counsel for Texas Governor Greg Abbott and clerked for Justice Alito. Rao, whose parents are from India, would be the first Asian-American justice on the Supreme Court, and only the seventh woman. Rao clerked for Justice Thomas earlier in her career. Davis has also previously floated the name of Aileen Cannon, the judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida who ruled favorably for Trump when he was being investigated for keeping classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago Club. Other conservative judges considered potential contenders for Trump to name are James Ho, another judge on Texas's 5th circuit, and two judges in Ohio's 6th circuit—Raymond M. Kethledge and Amul R. Thapar. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington-based think tank that's best known for spearheading Project 2025, is also expected to work to influence Trump's decision. John Malcolm, vice president of Heritage's Institute for Constitutional Government, can list off the top of his head more than 10 current circuit court judges he thinks would make strong justices on the nation's highest court. Malcolm also believes Senator Mike Lee of Utah, a former assistant U.S. attorney who clerked for Alito, would be an 'excellent choice.' While Lee isn't a sitting judge, he 'isn't afraid to speak his mind,' says Malcolm, who adds that Lee has a track record of legislation and books that show he's a textualist and originalist. Trump entered his second term having already helped cement a conservative majority for a generation through the installation of three nominees. In recent months, that court has upheld Trump's consolidation of power as President and bolstered his larger project to tilt the country's public policy to the right. In June, the Court limited the ability of judges to block Trump's policies nationwide and paved the way for the Administration to move forward with deporting immigrants to locations other than their home countries without additional due process requirements imposed by a district court judge During Trump's first term, he relied heavily on recommendations from the powerful conservative legal group The Federalist Society for his judicial nominations. That process produced a group of academically-minded conservative thinkers on the court that overturned the nationwide abortion protections in Roe v. Wade. Trump will likely be looking for a different standard this time around, says Wittes, the editor of Lawfare, an online publication that closely follows the Supreme Court. 'I assume the competition here would be to have shown greatest loyalty to Trump,' Wittes says. 'I think one would worry that this person would be guided by loyalty rather than guided by something like principle.'
The Diplomat
2 days ago
- Business
- The Diplomat
South Korea's Indo-Pacific Role Under Discussion in US Trade Talks
U.S. Army Command Sgt. Maj. Jack Love, U.S. Forces Korea Senior Enlisted Advisor (right), along with U.S and ROK senior leaders pose inside an AAVP-7A1 Amphibious Assault Vehicle during the Ulchi Freedom Shield Battlefield Circulation, Aug. 22, 2024. Last week, Chosun Ilbo reported that the United States had formally asked South Korea to broaden the scope of the United States-Republic of Korea (ROK) Mutual Defense Treaty's Article III to cover the wider Indo-Pacific region. Today, Hankook Ilbo reported that the push to expand the role of U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) across the Indo-Pacific under the so-called 'alliance modernization' framework is now a part of the bilateral tariff talks between the two countries. The request to reframe the South Korea-U.S. alliance as a 'comprehensive strategic partnership for the future' was made by U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau in Tokyo on July 18. This would presumably include a role for South Korea in a China-U.S. conflict, such as a crisis in the Taiwan Strait. Landau also raised issues such as increasing South Korean defense spending (reportedly from 2.3 percent of GDP to 5 percent of GDP) and greater cost-sharing for deployment of U.S. strategic assets in the region. These discussions echo meetings that U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kevin Kim held in Seoul on July 10-11. Such developments align with the Pentagon's Interim National Defense Strategic Guidance from March, and what is expected from the full National Defense Strategy (NDS) and Global Posture Review (GPR) later this year: an assertion that deterring a Chinese invasion of Taiwan is the United States' top priority. The United States has also pressed Japan and Australia for clarity on what they would do in a Taiwan Strait contingency and clarified with the Philippines that their mutual defense pact 'extends to armed attacks on our armed forces, aircraft or public vessels, including our Coast Guard, anywhere in the Pacific, including the South China Sea.' While all countries prefer to maintain strategic ambiguity over Taiwan to not upset China (South Korean President Lee Jae-myung has previously expressed reluctance to involve South Korea in a Taiwan-related security issue), South Korea is different from Japan and Australia. South Korea faces a direct threat from a different source: North Korea. For Seoul, USFK has always been about addressing the threat from North Korea. Thus, South Korea has been reluctant to embrace the 'one theater' concept that Japan champions, which integrates the Korean Peninsula with the East and South China Seas. The United States, Australia, and the Philippines reportedly support this concept, while South Korea understands the risk that such a structure could take away U.S. resources from deterring and if needed, defeating North Korea. However, with the deadline for trade talks looming on August 1, South Korea has sought trade concessions, including on tariffs and non-trade barriers, in return for accepting the U.S. request to recalibrate the USFK's strategic posture. Alliance modernization is a broader issue that also encompasses increased defense spending and expanded cooperation in the defense industry; the topic cannot be fully settled in the current round of trade talks. Still, a senior official from South Korea stated, 'We're asking the U.S. to show flexibility in trade in proportion to our security contributions.' The purpose of the South Korea-U.S. alliance in an era of increasing China-U.S. competition has already been under debate, and the ongoing deliberations will affect topics such as wartime operational control and extended nuclear deterrence. Throughout this, it is important not to antagonize China. It is also vital for U.S. officials to '[bring] South Korea into the process early and often' to not politicize the changes. As the deadline for the trade talks fast approaches, it will be interesting to see whether tying economics and security will make it easier or more difficult for Lee to sell the changes in the nature of the alliance to the South Korean public. Lee's success will, of course, hinge on the U.S. reception of the South Korean overture.
Fox News
6 days ago
- Politics
- Fox News
Trump DOJ sues New York City over long-standing sanctuary immigration policies
The Justice Department is suing New York City over its sanctuary policies, as the Trump administration targets jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with immigration authorities as it continues to ramp up deportation raids. The lawsuit filed in a New York federal court names New York City Mayor Eric Adams and several other city officials as defendants. The lawsuit claims the city has enacted policies with the intent of impeding the federal government's ability to enforce immigration laws. "New York City has long been at the vanguard of interfering with enforcing this country's immigration laws," the lawsuit states. "Its history as a sanctuary city dates back to 1989, and its efforts to thwart federal immigration enforcement have only intensified since." The Justice Department cited New York's policy that prohibits its Department of Corrections from honoring U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainers, which requests that federal immigration authorities be notified upon the release of a criminal illegal immigrant from jail. The New York Police Department was subject to a similar provision, the lawsuit states. In 2014, the city further resisted cooperation with ICE, including adding an amendment to its sanctuary city policy that immigration detainers would not be honored without a warrant issued by an Article III judge (or magistrate judge) and unless the subject of the detainer had been convicted of a "violent or serious" crime within the past five years or was a possible match on the federal terrorist watch list. The lawsuit said crimes committed by illegal immigrants in the city have prompted several city leaders to call for cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Attorney General Pam Bondi said the federal government was left with no choice but to protect New Yorkers. "If New York's leaders won't step up to protect their citizens, we will," she wrote on X. U.S. Rep. Nicole Malliatakis, R-N.Y., applauded the move, calling sanctuary polices "misguided," "costly and dangerous." "Restoring public safety in our communities starts with New York City cooperating with ICE's detainer requests. Failing to do so keeps dangerous criminals on our streets," she wrote on X. The lawmaker said she filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that showed more 16,000 crimes were committed by thousands of people who were living in hotels and shelters at taxpayer expense. Fox News Digital has reached out to the Adams and the White House. In June, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit against Los Angeles over its sanctuary policies. The city has become embroiled in a feud with the Trump administration over its deportation raids and anti-ICE protests.
Newsweek
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
Climate Activists Use Supreme Court's Samuel Alito's Words to Boost Lawsuit
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A group of young climate activists seeking to revive their lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) argued in a new court filing that a legal opinion by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito bolsters their right to proceed in court. Attorneys for the plaintiffs cite a dissenting opinion by Alito filed last year, challenging the Court's decision not to hear a case about whether a Wisconsin school district is legally allowed to conceal a student's gender identity from their parents. "Some federal courts are succumbing to the temptation to use the doctrine of Article III standing as a way of avoiding some particularly contentious constitutional questions," Alito wrote. Why It Matters Genesis B. v. EPA is one of several cases of environmental litigation involving youth plaintiffs as the debate over United States climate policy continues. The outcome could impact both how courts handle youth-led constitutional climate claims and the EPA's regulatory reach. The activists' efforts come as federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have increasingly weighed the scope and limits of agency authority over environmental matters. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito poses for a portrait in Washington, D.C., on October 7, 2022. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito poses for a portrait in Washington, D.C., on October 7, 2022. AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File What to Know Attorneys for the 18 plaintiffs involved in Genesis B. v. EPA filed their opening brief on July 2, 2025, with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. They called on the court to overturn a previous district court ruling that dismissed their case on the grounds that they lacked standing to sue. The plaintiffs claim the EPA discriminates against children by undervaluing the long-term benefits of pollution regulations, and that recent Supreme Court precedent strengthens their argument that federal courts have the authority to hear their claims. U.S. District Judge Michael Fitzgerald first dismissed the lawsuit in May 2024, but allowed the plaintiffs to submit an amended complaint. Fitzgerald cited the plaintiffs' failure to demonstrate how a favorable court ruling would redress their alleged injuries. Attorneys for the plaintiffs refer to two Supreme Court rulings decided after the lower court's order. In Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA, the Court ruled that a lower court had improperly blocked a challenge to an EPA waiver that allowed California to set more stringent car pollution rules. In that case, the Court said that a decline in gasoline sales could hurt fuel producers and that "those monetary costs 'are of course an injury.'" The second recent case cited by plaintiffs is Gutierrez v. Saenz, a case that dealt with a death-row inmate's right to challenge state laws on DNA testing. The Supreme Court overturned a lower court's ruling that Gutierrez did not have standing to sue because the courts could not provide him with a remedy. The plaintiffs in Genesis B. v. EPA argued that this shows "they are not required to prove that a favorable decision would result in different regulatory outcomes." The brief states that it is now "undeniable" that the district court may hear the case. Attorneys for the plaintiffs said that, if their claims are upheld, the courts possess the power to "redress their unequal treatment and ensuing constitutional injuries." Youth-led climate litigation has gained attention in recent years, with notable wins in state courts. For example, in 2023, young plaintiffs in Montana succeeded in obtaining a ruling that climate impacts must be considered before issuing permits for fossil fuel projects. In June, Hawaii agreed to a settlement with young people to decarbonize its transportation system by 2045. What People Are Saying: Attorneys for the plaintiffs, in a brief: "The district court erred in denying Plaintiffs standing to seek declaratory and injunctive relief for Defendants' unequal treatment and resulting economic, physical, and mental health harms these constitutional violations cause Plaintiffs personally." U.S. District Judge Michael Fitzgerald, in a February order: "Plaintiffs failed to present the Court with any authority for the proposition that dealing with a societal problem—albeit one of great magnitude—for a longer period of time transforms a generalized grievance into a particularized harm." What Happens Next The federal government is expected to file its own brief in the case by August 4. Do you have a story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact LiveNews@
Newsweek
20-06-2025
- Business
- Newsweek
Justice Jackson Warns of 'Reputational Cost' to Supreme Court After Ruling
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized the majority's ruling in a case over fuel providers challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) approval of California's vehicle emissions regulations, writing in a Friday dissent that the decision comes at a "reputational cost" for the court, according to documents reviewed by Newsweek. She added that the decision gives "fodder" to the perception that "moneyed interests, enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens." Why It Matters In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit and sided with fuel producers, ruling they have Article III standing to challenge the EPA's approval of California's vehicle emissions regulations. California's regulations "require automakers to limit average greenhouse-gas emissions across their vehicle fleets and manufacture a certain percentage of electric vehicles," the lawsuit reads. Several fuel producers sued the EPA over its approval of California's regulations, arguing the agency exceeded its authority under the Clean Air Act by approving regulations that target "global climate change rather than local California air quality problems." Jackson's dissent raised concerns about public perception of favoritism and the court being swayed by powerful interests. Confidence in the Supreme Court has steadily declined for decades, with 47 percent of Americans viewing the court favorably and 51 percent unfavorably, according to a 2024 Pew Research Center survey. In 1987, 76 percent held a favorable view, while just 17 percent viewed the court unfavorably. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson at her Senate confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill on March 22, 2022. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson at her Senate confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill on March 22, 2022. AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster What To Know In Diamond Alternative Energy v. Environmental Protection Agency, Justice Brett Kavanaugh issued the majority opinion, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court's liberals, holding that fuel producers have standing to challenge the EPA's approval of the California regulations. In her dissent, Jackson called out the majority's application of "standing doctrine," writing that "When courts adjust standing requirements to let certain litigants challenge the actions of the political branches but preclude suits by others with similar injuries, standing doctrine cannot perform its constraining function." She argued that "Over time, such selectivity begets judicial overreach and erodes public trust in the impartiality of judicial decision making." Jackson's dissent says the court is "setting us down that path." "I worry that the fuel industry's gain comes at a reputational cost for this Court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests," she said later in the opinion. Jackson argues that this perception, and even a mere "'appearance' of favoritism, founded or not," can undermine public confidence in the highest court. Justice Sonia Sotomayor also dissented, filing a separate opinion and not joining Jackson's. What People Are Saying Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, told NBC on Friday: "I don't think this case is an example of the court being inconsistent or somehow more favorable to moneyed interests than other sorts of interests. It's not like the court has closed the door on environmental groups." Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion: "Justice Jackson separately argues that the Court does not apply standing doctrine 'evenhandedly'...A review of standing cases over the last few years disproves that suggestion." Beth Milito, vice president of the National Federation of Independent Business' Small Business Legal Center, which filed an amicus brief in the case, said in a Friday press release: "Small businesses have the right to challenge overreach by government agencies and seek relief from harmful regulatory actions. The D.C. Circuit's opinion set an unreasonable standard for plaintiffs to prove that the court can remedy their injury. This would have made it nearly impossible for indirectly regulated parties to challenge regulating agencies. NFIB applauds the Court for reversing the lower court's opinion and ensuring that small businesses have a clear course of action and a fair chance at proving that the court can provide suitable relief." Kristen Waggoner, president and chief counsel of Alliance Defending Freedom, who filed an amicus brief in the case, said Friday on X (formerly Twitter): "The ruling in Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA has significant implications beyond just environmental SCOTUS ruling will help plaintiffs, like these churches, hold the government accountable when its regulations have the downstream effect of violating their fundamental rights. An important win." What Happens Next The Supreme Court is expected to release a slew of opinions in the coming weeks, with the term scheduled to end in late June.
