Latest news with #CampaignLegalCenter
New York Times
a day ago
- Business
- New York Times
Trump's Feud With Musk Highlights His View of Government Power: It's Personal
Amid the fireworks of his spectacular breakup with Elon Musk last week was a striking admission by President Trump that once could have led to subpoenas. As he lashed out at Mr. Musk for disloyalty, Mr. Trump threatened to cut off the billionaire's federal contracts in retaliation, effectively acknowledging what his critics have long said, that he looks at the government as his personal instrument for dispensing favors to friends and penalizing those who cross him. In the old days, that might have been cause for a corruption investigation. In the modern era, it's just another Thursday. Mr. Trump has long since abandoned the kinds of rules and traditions that would constrain a president from employing the power of his office to personally steer federal contracts to allies and away from enemies. And even more remarkable, he has no hesitation about saying it out loud. 'The Musk quote is just further proof that Trump and the late King Louis share a common view of the world: The state, it is me,' said Trevor Potter, the president of the Campaign Legal Center and a former Republican chairman of the Federal Election Commission. 'And yes, this is an example of Trump publicly and improperly threatening to use the enormous contracting power of the federal government as a weapon to punish someone for criticizing him. It is a complete abuse of power.' Mr. Trump's second term so far has been a 139-day quest for 'retribution,' the word he used during his campaign, one that has bent, broke and busted through seemingly every boundary of the presidency. He has used the highest office in the land to take revenge against prosecutors, F.B.I. agents, law firms, news organizations, generals, Harvard University, former Biden administration officials and, yes, former Trump administration officials who have made it onto his enemies list. There has been little subtlety about it. He has sought to cripple law firms with executive orders that specifically explained that he was going after them because they employed, or used to employ, people who angered him. He has stripped security clearances and even security guards from former officials he deemed personally disloyal. Just last week, he ordered an investigation into former President Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s use of an autopen, never mind that Mr. Trump has used one too. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Al Jazeera
5 days ago
- Business
- Al Jazeera
Fact check: Will ‘big beautiful bill' really allow Trump to delay election?
A liberal group and social media users shared posts that say President Donald Trump's 'one big beautiful bill' for tax and spending would let him reschedule or eliminate elections. 'If the Senate passes the 'one big beautiful bill' and Trump signs it, that's it. It becomes law,' said the viral graphic on Meta and X. 'And here's what that really means. He can delay or cancel elections – legally.' The post included a long list of other claims about what the bill would accomplish; for this fact-check, we are focusing on the elections claim. The group Being Liberal, which calls itself 'one of the oldest social media liberal political brands', took down the graphic after we reached out for comment. The group told us it didn't create the post and removed it because the elections claim wasn't accurate. The earliest reference for the graphic we found online was from an anonymous blog post on May 23. The bill does not give Trump power to delay or cancel elections, an action that would be unconstitutional. 'The bill would not directly give the president any authority over elections,' said Eric Kashdan, senior legal counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, a group that advocates for voting rights and this year sued the Trump administration over a voter registration executive order. A spokesperson for House Speaker Mike Johnson, Griffin Neal, told PolitiFact, 'The bill obviously does not provide the President of the United States with the authority to cancel or delay elections.' The US House passed the tax and spending bill May 22 and it now moves to the Senate, where lawmakers could make changes. Senator John Thune of South Dakota, the Senate majority leader, said he hopes the bill can be sent to Trump by July 4. The bill includes one provision related to democracy and checks and balances; it would expand the executive branch's power by curtailing judges' ability to hold people in contempt of court. Provision critics said it could take away the courts' power to restrain the federal government if it violates the Constitution or breaks the law. We found no provision in the bill that says the president can delay or cancel an election. In July 2020, amid the pandemic and a surge in voting by mail, Trump floated the idea of delaying the election. At the time, he was running for re-election. But the Constitution empowers Congress to set the date by which states must choose their presidential electors, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service found in 2020. 'Since 1845, Congress has required states to appoint presidential electors on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, which represents the date by which voters in every state must cast their ballot for President,' the report said. Congress still has that power, said Edward Foley, an Ohio State University constitutional law professor. The Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022 added a new definition of 'Election Day' that makes it clear that a voting extension can occur only through state law specified in advance and under tightly restricted conditions, such as a catastrophe, Foley said. That means Election Day 'cannot otherwise be cancelled or delayed' and the president plays no role in any alteration of Election Day, Foley said. Congress can change the Election Day date by enacting a new statute, as it did with the Electoral Count Reform Act, Foley said. Erwin Chemerinsky, a University of California, Berkeley law professor, told PolitiFact nothing in the bill lets Trump cancel or delay elections. 'The Constitution provides that elections for Congress be held every two years and for President every four years,' Chemerinsky said. 'There is no constitutional authority to cancel elections.' The bill includes a different provision that some experts called a threat to democracy, but not at the ballot box. Section 70302 would make it harder for judges to find a defendant in contempt of court for ignoring a judge's orders. Here's how: The legislation would require plaintiffs to pay a security bond before a judge could find the defendant in contempt of court. That would mean judges could no longer waive the security bond requirement, something that frequently happens in cases against the government. The section references a federal rule that says a court may issue a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order only if the plaintiff pays a security bond to cover costs and damages by any party 'found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained'. A security bond is an insurance policy to protect someone wrongfully accused of wrongdoing from financial losses during litigation, Kashdan said. The courts can require plaintiffs to pay money that the court holds until the end of the litigation 'If they win, they get their money back,' Kashdan said. 'If they lose, and the person they sued had a right to do whatever it was they were prevented from doing during the lawsuit, they get to keep that money to help compensate them for any losses they experienced during the litigation.' However, 'those seeking such court orders generally do not have the resources to post a bond, and insisting on it would immunise unconstitutional government conduct from judicial review,' wrote Chemerinsky for the website Just Security, which publishes a Trump litigation tracker. 'It always has been understood that courts can choose to set the bond at zero.' A March White House memo that criticised organisations for suing the federal government said enforcement of the security bond rule 'is critical to ensuring that taxpayers do not foot the bill for costs or damages caused by wrongly issued preliminary relief by activist judges and to achieving the effective administration of justice'. The House bill provision raised concern among groups that have defended the judiciary's role to provide a check on Trump's power. As of May 23, at least 177 court rulings have temporarily paused Trump administration actions, according to The New York Times. Social media posts say the Republican tax and budget bill will let Trump 'delay or cancel elections – legally'. We found nothing in the bill that would let Trump cancel or delay elections. A provision would make it harder for judges to hold people in contempt of court, but that is not the same as cancelling elections. Only Congress can change a presidential election's date, not the president, and this bill doesn't change that. We rate this statement False.
The Herald Scotland
01-06-2025
- Business
- The Herald Scotland
House bill could limit power of court orders against Trump policies
But the obscure House provision, which even a Republican supporter of the legislation disavowed, would prevent judges from enforcing their orders unless litigants post a bond. The bond could match the amount at stake in the lawsuit, which in one case was trillions in federal grants. More: From gym memberships to gun silencers, Trump's tax bill is full of surprises Without the threat of contempt, legal experts say the Trump administration could ignore court orders with impunity. "What this provision would do, is say that actually, no court of the United States could enforce an injunction or restraining order using their contempt authority," Eric Kashdan, senior legal counsel for federal advocacy at the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center, told USA TODAY. Judges, litigants and waiving bonds The legislation deals with one of the rules governing federal civil lawsuits - known as 65(c). It calls for litigants to post a bond if they win a court order such as an injunction or a temporary restraining order to block something from happening, in case the defendant ultimately wins the case. Judges have discretion about how much to set the bond. But the goal is to have the bond comparable to how much the defendant might lose while the case is litigated, such as a lost sale or blocked merger. For decades judges have waived bonds in cases against the government because the lawsuits aren't typically over money - they are about a disputed policy or the Constitution. More: How Trump's clash with the courts is brewing into an 'all-out war' In February, U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan refused a request from Trump's White House Office of Management Budget to require a bond from the National Council of Nonprofits when she blocked the government from freezing all federal grants. "The court declines," Alikhan wrote. She noted the government was "alleged to have unlawfully withheld trillions of dollars of previously committed funds to countless recipients." But she said OMB would suffer no monetary injury from her injunction. Why is Trump pushing for this? The legislative provision in the budget reconciliation bill prohibits federal courts from enforcing contempt citations unless a bond was posted when an injunction or temporary restraining order was issued. It applies to court orders before, on, or after the legislation is enacted, meaning it would apply to all the orders already issued. Judges would have to weigh proposals to determine what bonds should be required in each case, according to legal experts. With discretion, a judge could impose a nominal $1 bond but the process would still take time, experts said. "All temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, and permanent injunctions where no bond had been posted no longer would be enforceable by contempt," Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of law school at the University of California, Berkeley, told USA TODAY. The legislative provision echoes a Trump memo signed March 11 that called for the Justice Department to request bonds in all lawsuits to protect against "potential costs and damages from a wrongly issued injunction." "Federal courts should hold litigants accountable for their misrepresentations and ill-granted injunctions," the memo said. Which Trump policies have been blocked in federal courts? Trump signed 157 executive orders by May 23 - an unprecedented number four months into a presidential term - to put sweeping policies in place quickly, without waiting for legislation through Congress. The orders led to 250 lawsuits challenging Trump's dismantling of federal agencies and firing federal workers, swiftly deporting immigrants, ending diversity initiatives and imposing tariffs. The rulings in deportation cases include: U.S. District Judge James Boasberg in Washington, D.C., found probable cause April 16 the government acted with criminal contempt for his order blocking the deportation of Venezuelans who were accused of being gang members before they had a chance to fight the designation in court. The government appealed his ruling. U.S. District Paula Xinis in Maryland has held repeated hearings asking for updates from the government on the deportation of a Salvadoran immigrant who was mistakenly deported despite an immigration court order preventing his removal. Government officials have argued they no longer have custody of the migrant to return him because he is in a Salvadoran prison. U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts ruled May 21 the government violated his order temporarily halting deportations to countries other than where migrants were from, after six migrants were flown to South Sudan. The government asked the Supreme Court on May 27 to lift Murphy's block. Trump and his allies have argued that judges are infringing on his authority to protect national security and negotiate foreign affairs with other countries. More: Trade whiplash: Appeals Court allows Trump to keep tariffs while appeal plays out "We hope that the Supreme Court will weigh in and rein them in," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said May 29 of "rogue judges." Trump directed the administration to comply with court orders, Leavitt said, "but we're going to fight them in court and we're going to win on the merits of these cases because we know we are acting within the president's legal and executive authority." But legal experts said requiring the deported immigrants to post a bond would likely prohibit them from having cases heard in federal courts. If courts are no longer able to enforce their orders under the legislation, experts said the government might just ignore the orders. "If they can simply ignore the order, they don't have to appeal it. They can simply not do it," said Mark Foley, a 43-year lawyer in Milwaukee. "It's a heads they win and tails I lose." Fight over injunctions 'a huge separation of powers issue': Legal experts The dispute over enforcing court orders adds Congress' legislative branch to the raging debate the separation of powers between Trump's executive branch carrying out laws and judges interpreting some of his actions as unlawful. Trump has blasted judges who ruled against him but said he will obey court orders and appeal the ones he doesn't like. As Trump appeals, the Supreme Court faces an unprecedented 14 emergency requests from the administration to green-light his policies, including four that are still pending. In the legislative debate, legal experts say Trump's fellow Republicans leading Congress will decide whether to hinder courts at the president's request from enforcing orders against the executive branch. "This is Congress saying, 'No, we don't think you can enforce these orders' and they're doing that at the strong demands of the executive branch," Kashdan said. "It's a huge separation of powers issue for what underlies our democracy, and all the checks and balances we're supposed to have." 'I do not agree': GOP lawmaker who supported legislation The provision was obscure enough in the 1,100-page legislation that some who supported the bill were unaware of it. Rep. Mike Flood, R-Nebraska, told a raucous town hall May 27 that he was unaware of the provision and didn't support it. He added that he would urge the Senate to drop it. More: Who are the GOP senators balking at Trump's tax bill? "I do not agree with that section that was added to that bill," Flood said. "I do believe that the federal district courts when issuing an injunction, it should have legal effect. This provision was unknown to me when I voted for the bill." Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, told a town hall May 30 in Parkersburg that the bond provision "will not be" in the Senate version of the bill because she expects the parliamentarian to rule that it doesn't have a financial impact on the budget, which is required for this type of legislation."I don't see any argument that could ever be made that this affects mandatory spending or revenues," Ernst said. "It will not be in the Senate bill." Senators will begin next week reviewing the legislation with a goal of sending any changes back to the House and to Trump before July 4.
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
What's Next for Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill'?
The Senate is preparing to consider President Trump's 'big beautiful bill,' which passed in the House last week — but Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson believes there's 'enough' GOP opposition to 'stop the process.' That opposition mainly centers around spending cuts. Johnson thinks it's vital that Senate Republicans tackle the bill's impact on the deficit, and has characterized high spending as 'mortgaging our children's future.' Sen. Rand Paul told Fox News he won't support the bill unless the increase to the debt ceiling is taken out. Republicans control the Senate 53-47, so there's not much room for dissent — even though they only need a simple majority having invoked the complicated 'budget reconciliation' procedure to allow the Senate to pass the bill with fewer votes than usual. Republicans want both chambers to pass the bill by July 4th. The Senate isn't expected to take it up until early June, and any changes will have to be passed by the House before Trump signs it into law, so it may be a rush to the finish line. There's been a lot of coverage about the bill's potential impact on Medicaid, tax cuts, border security funding, clean energy funding, and more — but a couple of key provisions may have slipped your notice. This article from the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) sets them out in more detail, but here's the gist. A policy in Section 70302 would hugely limit federal courts' power to hold government officials in contempt if they violate judicial orders. This is a major live issue — as the Guardian notes, at least one judge appears poised to issue a contempt citation in a high-profile immigration case related to the administration's deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members. Not only does this provision threaten the judicial branch and the separation of powers, but as the CLC points out, it represents a stark escalation in a campaign the Trump administration is already waging against the judiciary. The courts have ruled against it at least 170 times already, and in many cases, Trump's response has been to ignore due process and attempt to intimidate judges. Section 43201(c) of the House reconciliation bill would ban the enforcement of all state and local laws that regulate AI — including regulation around the use of AI in political campaigns and elections — for 10 years. For want of decisive action from Congress to regulate AI's impact on the democratic process, states have filled the vacuum by enacting their own safeguards. If the big beautiful bill dismantles them, false information could run rampant for the next decade, seriously impacting voters' ability to make informed decisions. The post What's Next for Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill'? appeared first on Katie Couric Media.
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Hidden Threat to Democracy Slipped Into Trump's ‘Big, Beautiful' Bill
When President Donald Trump's 'one big, beautiful bill' passed through the House this week, Republican lawmakers slipped in a provision to limit the power of the courts. The move was revealed as the Trump administration has clashed repeatedly with the legal system since the president took office on January 20. Trump and his top officials have attacked court rulings and those who issue them as 'activist judges.' Buried deep in the text of the more than 1,000-page bill is a measure that would restrict the federal courts' authority to hold government officials in contempt if they violate court orders. 'No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued,' reads Section 70302 of the so-called One Big, Beautiful Bill Act. 'This is part of a continuing effort to neuter the courts,' said Cornell professor Joseph Margulies. 'It is a move to consolidate monarchical power so that there is no longer any effective restraint posed by the judiciary.' When someone violates a court order, the judge who issued the order has the ability to hold them in contempt and issue fines or even jail time as punishment. The provision deep in the massive domestic agenda bill would require anyone suing the government to pay a bond before the court could use its contempt power to enforce an order. This would severely restrict federal courts' authority to hold officials in contempt if they violate judicial orders, according to the Campaign Legal Center. 'That's a huge congressional overreach into the judicial branch, spurred on by the executive branch pushing Congress to do this,' said its senior legal counsel, Eric Kashdan. Since January, Trump has taken sweeping actions to remake the federal government and carry out his agenda in the U.S. and abroad, including firing federal employees and top officials, freezing funds, and announcing controversial policy changes. But the president's efforts have been halted and reversed on numerous occasions by the courts. They have ruled more than 170 times against the Trump administration, finding in many cases the administration's actions were unconstitutional, according to tracking by the New York Times. In response, the president, vice president, other senior Trump administration officials, and close MAGA allies have attacked judges online, including by name, and sought to undermine the judiciary system as a co-equal branch of government. Just this week, a federal judge found the administration violated a court order barring officials from deporting people to countries that were not their own without giving them sufficient time to contest it. It is not yet clear what the punishment would be. Not only would the bill's provision restrict the courts' authority, but it would make court orders issued before the law takes effect unenforceable. 'That's a huge retroactive attack on the rule of law in an attempt to undermine all the decisions that have already been held against the Trump administration,' added Kashdan. Trump previously directed federal agencies to request a bond in every case where the plaintiff is seeking an injunction against the government with the signing of an executive order on March 11, but the courts have discretion when it comes to the rule, so the order had no teeth. Even as it was slipped into the massive tax bill, the provision is unconstitutional, Margulies argued. 'Congress can't infringe on the power of the judiciary to enforce its rules,' he said. 'I would say this is a separation of powers violation.' That is not the only 'hidden gem' raising concerns for democracy. The bill also includes banning state and local laws from being enforced when it comes to regulating artificial intelligence for ten years. It is a broad provision that would ban regulating AI in elections and political campaigns. 'It will be at least a decade... of unchecked AI's usage creating fake content that is deceptively realistic. It's going to interfere with voters' right to know who was trying to influence their vote and what exactly decisions they're making in an informed way at the ballot box,' Kashdan said. The bill passed out of the House by just one vote, 215 to 214, early on Thursday after lawmakers stayed up throughout the night on Tuesday and Wednesday to finalize the bill and iron out details to appease Republican holdouts. It now heads to the Senate, where Republicans have some lofty changes they want included in their version of the legislation which could spell trouble with getting the final bill passed. The goal is to have it wrapped up just in time for the Fourth of July. It is not yet clear whether the AI ban or court bond requirements will comply with Senate restrictions on what can be included in their bill, but senators will be facing pressure to remove the provisions. 'They're both an attack on the rule of law, an attack on the judicial branch, and they'll harm voters,' Kashdan warned.
