Latest news with #Humphrey'sExecutor
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Will the Supreme Court save the Fed's independence?
The Federal Reserve has emerged as the 800-pound gorilla in the legal fight over President Trump's firings of agency leaders traditionally independent from the White House. The Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority is increasingly signaling it wants to eviscerate precedent that has protected certain federal agency leaders from at-will termination by the president for nearly a century. But even as the justices eye the major expansion of presidential power, they are taking great care to shield the Fed, rejecting the notion that the court will imperil the institution's independence. 'The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States,' the court stressed in an emergency ruling last week. Trump has long flirted with firing Fed Chair Jerome Powell over frustration that he has not brought interest rates down quicker. Last month, Trump said Powell's 'termination cannot come fast enough', only to say days later he has 'no intention' of firing the central banker. But the White House acknowledges it is studying the issue and Trump keeps ripping into Powell, raising continued speculation about whether he will eventually be canned. Meanwhile, questions about the Fed's independence are already looming large as the courts grapple with Trump's firings at other independent agencies despite their statutory removal protections. The terminations are part of an expansive view of presidential power advanced by Trump's White House that would give him near-total control over the executive branch. On Thursday, the Supreme Court handed Trump a major win in his effort by greenlighting his terminations of Democratic appointees at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). It's the latest sign that the conservative justices may be on their way to overrule Humphrey's Executor v. United States, a 1935 Supreme Court decision that authorized Congress to provide for-cause removal restrictions for various federal agencies. Already, the conservative justices have limited the precedent's reach in a series of recent cases. But they have yet to formally overrule it. Many court watchers believe the justices are skeptical of Humphrey's Executor but are hesitant to eliminate the Fed's protections, given the central bank's role in setting monetary policy that at times can be politically unpopular. Remarkably, the court dedicated one of the four paragraphs in Thursday's order to distinguishing the Fed, suggesting its 'historical tradition' could justify removal protections even if the president has control over other traditionally independent agencies. In dissent, the court's three liberal justices said the comment was 'out of the blue' and asserted a simpler way to reassure the markets would have been to deny Trump's request. 'I am glad to hear it, and do not doubt the majority's intention to avoid imperiling the Fed,' wrote Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. 'But then, today's order poses a puzzle. For the Federal Reserve's independence rests on the same constitutional and analytic foundations as that of the NLRB, MSPB, FTC, FCC, and so on — which is to say it rests largely on Humphrey's,' Kagan continued. The NLRB and MSPB cases will now return to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. But soon, they could return to the Supreme Court, putting the Fed back in the limelight. Welcome to , The Hill's weekly courts newsletter, we're Ella Lee and Zach Schonfeld. Email us tips (elee@ zschonfeld@ or reach out to us on X (@ByEllaLee, @ZachASchonfeld) and Signal (elee.03, zachschonfeld.48). Not already on the list? Soon after jury selection concluded in President Trump's New York criminal trial last year, a man named Max Azzarello set himself on fire outside the courthouse. The self-immolation, which resulted in Azzarello's death, set a dramatic and dark tone at the trial's outset but ultimately faded into the background of the historic case. In New York Times reporter Jonah Bromwich's new book about the trial, 'Dragon on Centre Street,' Azzarello's full story is told for the first time. Bromwich's book takes readers inside the courtroom for an accurate and compelling account of Trump's seven-week criminal trial, inviting readers behind the curtain of the Times's reporting process on the historic case. He also reveals several newsy nuggets, including how porn actress Stormy Daniels missed her flight to New York and shook up the order of witnesses. But it is Bromwich's deep reporting of those on the fringe of the trial, like Azzarello, that stands out most. Azzarello grew up on Long Island. Bromwich detailed how he was interested in civics and 'alternatives to the mainstream,' like socialism or anarchism, and was not upset when Trump was elected in 2016, given his interest in widespread change. One of his sisters had worked as a wardrobe assistant on The Celebrity Apprentice, invisible string connecting Azzarello and Trump long before that fateful day outside the courthouse. He was close with his mother, who died in April 2022 after a battle with chronic illness. In the spring of 2023, he became 'captured by an obsession' that 'almost everyone' in American public life was secretly fascist – Trump, former President Biden, the Clintons, Elon Musk, Whoopi Goldberg and more. He posted these beliefs on social media 'constantly' but struggled to convince anyone, including his father, Richard, and two sisters. He struggled to be noticed. Azzarello's online persona laid bare his personal struggles. He described himself as a 'research investigator' on LinkedIn, his bio warning that 'We've got a secret fascism problem.' On Instagram, he'd bombard his followers with his theory. When he'd talk about his theory, his whole personality – even his voice – would change. 'Max was increasingly in pain,' Bromwich wrote. 'No one would listen to him.' In August 2023, months after Trump's indictment, Azzarello was arrested several times for disorderly conduct. When his probation ended in April 2024, he made plans to travel to New York, where cameras would be fixed on Trump's trial – and he could finally get his message out. Minutes after the jury selection process concluded, Azzarello doused himself in liquid from a canister held above his head and lit a flame. He was quickly consumed by the fire. Bromwich reported that Azzarello's father had turned on MSNBC to see the latest on jury selection. A reporter in front of the courthouse described the spectacle of a man on fire. 'Oh no. Please don't be Max,' Richard Azzarello said to himself before putting the thought out of his mind, Bromwich reported. But about 90 minutes later, he received a 'hysterical' call from one of his daughters. Want to learn more? Bromwich will appear in conversation with New York Times Washington correspondent Michael Schmidt at Politics & Prose Thursday. Buried deep in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — the budget reconciliation bill making its way through Congress — is a provision that could sharply limit district courts' ability to enforce their rulings blocking Trump's policies The provision instructs that no U.S. court 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. It cites Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), which requires federal judges to decide whether a bond is needed when an injunction or temporary restraining order is sought. Usually, judges waive the bond requirement when a plaintiff alleges a constitutional violation by the U.S. government, FindLaw managing editor Joseph Fawbush wrote in a blog post about the provision. 'Otherwise, it could be hard for many plaintiffs to challenge government laws and actions as unconstitutional,' he wrote. Judges have issued dozens of preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders against the Trump administration, oftentimes waiving the bond requirement. Just last week, U.S. District Judge Myong Joun, an appointee of former President Biden who serves in Boston, did so when he blocked Trump's dismantling of the Education Department. However, under the new rule, contempt enforcement would not be possible when a judge waives the bond. The orders are enforced by the U.S. Marshals Service, whose funding is appropriated by Congress. That would render toothless any injunctions or temporary restraining orders issued against the Trump administration where the security requirement was waived, because judges would not be able to enforce contempt rulings if the orders were violated. The 1,116-page budget reconciliation bill, including the contempt provision, has already passed the House but it has yet to reach the Senate for a vote. Read Tuesday's full order list here. IN: Compassionate release The Supreme Court agreed to take up one of the relists we highlighted in last week's Petition Pile, Fernandez v. United States. The third time was the charm for Joe Fernandez, who twice before unsuccessfully petitioned the Supreme Court to review his case at earlier stages. This time, however, the court agreed to take up a question that could shorten Fernandez's life sentence for a murder-for-hire conspiracy to time served. At issue is the scope of judges' discretion under the compassionate release statute, which allows courts to reduce a defendant's sentence for 'extraordinary and compelling reasons.' Fernandez was sentenced to life in prison over his role in a 2000 shooting that killed two members of a Mexican drug cartel, who traveled to New York to collect a debt from a drug ringleader. Raising questions about the jury's verdict and noting his co-conspirators received lower sentences, a federal district judge granted Fernandez's motion for compassionate release. Fernandez petitioned the Supreme Court after an appeals court reversed the judge's ruling. The appeals court said Fernandez's arguments didn't qualify as 'extraordinary and compelling reasons' because they circumvented the normal process for challenging the validity of a criminal conviction. The justices will now review the matter, with oral arguments likely to be set for late this year. OUT: Flat Oak and student's 'two-genders' shirt Finally, at last! After relisting Apache Stronghold v. United States a whopping 15 times, the court spoke on Tuesday. We've covered the backstory in several previous editions, but here's a quick recap: The federal government is preparing to transfer Flat Oak, a sacred Apache religious site, so it can be converted into a copper mine. The petition sought to block the transfer on religious grounds. The court turned away the petition alongside a 17-page dissent from Justice Neil Gorsuch, who was joined by fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, complete with a map and photo. Gorsuch, the Supreme Court's staunchest defender of American Indian rights, called the court's refusal 'a grievous mistake' with consequences 'that threaten to reverberate for generations.' 'Just imagine if the government sought to demolish a historic cathedral on so questionable a chain of legal reasoning. I have no doubt that we would find that case worth our time,' Gorsuch wrote. 'Faced with the government's plan to destroy an ancient site of tribal worship, we owe the Apaches no less. They may live far from Washington, D.C., and their history and religious practices may be unfamiliar to many. But that should make no difference.' Justice Samuel Alito recused from the case, and the duo failed to convince at least two more of their colleagues to take up the dispute. Separately, the court turned away another petition we highlighted when it was first relisted. In L.M. v. Town of Middleborough, Massachusetts, the court declined to hear a student's challenge to his school district blocking him from wearing a T-shirt to class that reads, 'There are only two genders.' Thomas and Alito both publicly dissented. The student claimed the ban violates the Supreme Court's 1969 decision, Tinker v. Des Moines, that famously permitted students to wear to school armbands protesting the Vietnam War. But a lower court rejected the claim. In a brief, solo dissent, Thomas repeated his longstanding criticism of Tinker but stressed it remains binding precedent that lower courts must follow. Alito authored a far longer dissent, saying the lower court had distorted the Supreme Court's First Amendment caselaw. 'Just as in Tinker, some of L.M.'s classmates found his speech upsetting,' wrote Alito, joined by Thomas. 'Feeling upset, however, is an unavoidable part of living in our 'often disputatious' society.' The court has relisted four petitions for the first time, adding to the nine others we've covered in previous editions that remain pending. The first new relist, Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections, implicates states that allow mail ballots to be received after Election Day. Republicans have looked to crack down on the practice by suing in court. A lower court rejected such a challenge brought by Rep. Michael Bost (R-Ill.) and two of Trump's electors from Illinois, finding they had no legal standing. Bost and the electors want the Supreme Court to review that finding and revive their case. In Hamm v. Smith, the justices will return to the death row case of Joseph Clifton Smith. In November, the court sent Smith's case back to a lower court to clarify its ruling surrounding his low IQ test scores and whether they make him ineligible for the death penalty. Days later, the lower court again affirmed he is intellectually disabled and thus ineligible for capital punishment. Alabama's Republican attorney general now seeks the Supreme Court's review, with the Trump administration's backing. In The GEO Group v. Menocal, the court is asked to wade into a dispute concerning a major government contractor that operates immigration detention facilities. Alejandro Menocal, who was detained in GEO's Aurora, Colo., facility, brought forced labor claims against the company. Government contractors have immunity from damages suits when the contractor was 'lawfully' carrying out work 'authorized and directed' by the government, but a judge ruled GEO's alleged conduct went beyond that so the case could move forward. The company tried to appeal, but the circuit court found the lower ruling isn't immediately appealable, and GEO needs to wait for the trial court proceedings to conclude. GEO now wants the Supreme Court to reverse that ruling and allow the company's immunity appeal to immediately move forward. The final relist, Hencely v. Fluor Corporation, also concerns government contractors. Former U.S. Army Specialist Winston Hencely, who was critically injured in 2016 by a suicide bomber at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan, is seeking to revive his lawsuit against the defense contractor that employed the bomber. An Army investigation found the contractor breached its contract with the Army and the breach contributed to the attack. Hencely attempted to sue under South Carolina state law, but an appeals court held that his claims are preempted by federal law. Hencely says the justices should take up the case to resolve a split among the lower courts about how to interpret a 1988 Supreme Court decision on the issue. Former Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) has appeared to delete his X account. Much of Santos' recent content concerned his upcoming 7.25-year prison sentence, including a Monday post suggesting he was giving up on seeking a pardon from Trump. Santos said friends who had agreed to help with a pardon are no longer doing so and that 'I will not spend the last 61 days I have of life scrambling on how to get past a bunch of guard dogs.' Congratulations to Kyle Fraser, who was crowned last week as the winner of 'Survivor' 48. Fans know that Fraser won the $1 million prize just before returning home to marry his then-fiancé and fellow attorney, Maggie Turner. What you may not know is that Turner is one of the attorneys representing a group of U.S. Institute of Peace employees suing the Trump administration for attempting to dismantle the agency. Lawyers in Sean 'Diddy' Combs's federal sex trafficking and racketeering trial keep calling the rapper by his nicknames in their questioning, drawing admonishment from the judge, AP's Mike Sisak reports. Combs's indictment listed off several nicknames: Puff Daddy, P. Diddy, Diddy, PD and Love. But this reference was to 'Puff.' Today Nancy Marks, ex-Rep. George Santos's (R-N.Y.) former campaign treasurer, is set to be sentenced after pleading guilty to conspiring with the then-candidate to fraudulently inflate his campaign finance reports. Thursday The Supreme Court will announce opinions. A federal judge in New York is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a challenge to the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)'s access to Office of Personnel Management (OPM) systems. A Massachusetts federal judge is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in Harvard's challenge to the revocation of its certificate that allows it to enroll international students. Another New York federal judge is set to hold a hearing over a motion to dismiss a Columbia University student's challenge to Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) efforts to deport people based on their pro-Palestinian views. A trial is set to begin in Texas in an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) challenge to Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act on behalf of one Venezuelan woman. A federal judge in California is set to hold a noncompliance hearing in a challenge to the administration's decision to end temporary protected status (TPS) for Venezuelans and Haitians. Friday Closing arguments are scheduled in Google's search antitrust trial in Washington, D.C. Monday The Supreme Court will announce orders. Tuesday A Virginia federal judge is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a challenge to the administration's efforts to scrub references to race and gender from Department of Defense Education Activity libraries brought by 12 minors with an active-duty parent enrolled in the program. The New York Times's Jessica Silver-Greenberg, Matthew Goldstein, Maggie Haberman and Michael S. Schmidt: Trump Allies Look to Benefit From Pro Bono Promises by Elite Law Firms BBC's Andy Verity: Rate 'rigging' traders say they were scapegoated – now the Supreme Court will decide Reuters's Sara Merken: Trouble with AI 'hallucinations' spreads to big law firms David Lat's 'Original Jurisdiction': SCOTUS Clerk Hiring Watch: OT 2025 And Beyond The Wall Street Journal's Erin Mulvaney and C. Ryan Barber: Top Paul Weiss Litigators Leave to Start Their Own Firm We'll be back next Wednesday with additional reporting and insights. In the meantime, keep up with our coverage here. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
28-05-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Will the Supreme Court save the Fed's independence?
Thank you for signing up! Subscribe to more newsletters here The Federal Reserve has emerged as the 800-pound gorilla in the legal fight over President Trump's firings of agency leaders traditionally independent from the White House. The Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority is increasingly signaling it wants to eviscerate precedent that has protected certain federal agency leaders from at-will termination by the president for nearly a century. But even as the justices eye the major expansion of presidential power, they are taking great care to shield the Fed, rejecting the notion that the court will imperil the institution's independence. 'The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States,' the court stressed in an emergency ruling last week. Trump has long flirted with firing Fed Chair Jerome Powell over frustration that he has not brought interest rates down quicker. Last month, Trump said Powell's 'termination cannot come fast enough', only to say days later he has 'no intention' of firing the central banker. But the White House acknowledges it is studying the issue and Trump keeps ripping into Powell, raising continued speculation about whether he will eventually be canned. Meanwhile, questions about the Fed's independence are already looming large as the courts grapple with Trump's firings at other independent agencies despite their statutory removal protections. The terminations are part of an expansive view of presidential power advanced by Trump's White House that would give him near-total control over the executive branch. On Thursday, the Supreme Court handed Trump a major win in his effort by greenlighting his terminations of Democratic appointees at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). It's the latest sign that the conservative justices may be on their way to overrule Humphrey's Executor v. United States, a 1935 Supreme Court decision that authorized Congress to provide for-cause removal restrictions for various federal agencies. Already, the conservative justices have limited the precedent's reach in a series of recent cases. But they have yet to formally overrule it. Many court watchers believe the justices are skeptical of Humphrey's Executor but are hesitant to eliminate the Fed's protections, given the central bank's role in setting monetary policy that at times can be politically unpopular. Remarkably, the court dedicated one of the four paragraphs in Thursday's order to distinguishing the Fed, suggesting its 'historical tradition' could justify removal protections even if the president has control over other traditionally independent agencies. In dissent, the court's three liberal justices said the comment was 'out of the blue' and asserted a simpler way to reassure the markets would have been to deny Trump's request. 'I am glad to hear it, and do not doubt the majority's intention to avoid imperiling the Fed,' wrote Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. 'But then, today's order poses a puzzle. For the Federal Reserve's independence rests on the same constitutional and analytic foundations as that of the NLRB, MSPB, FTC, FCC, and so on — which is to say it rests largely on Humphrey's,' Kagan continued. The NLRB and MSPB cases will now return to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. But soon, they could return to the Supreme Court, putting the Fed back in the limelight. Welcome to The Gavel, The Hill's weekly courts newsletter, we're Ella Lee and Zach Schonfeld. Email us tips (elee@ zschonfeld@ or reach out to us on X (@ByEllaLee, @ZachASchonfeld) and Signal (elee.03, zachschonfeld.48). Not already on the list? Subscribe here. Soon after jury selection concluded in President Trump's New York criminal trial last year, a man named Max Azzarello set himself on fire outside the courthouse. The self-immolation, which resulted in Azzarello's death, set a dramatic and dark tone at the trial's outset but ultimately faded into the background of the historic case. In New York Times reporter Jonah Bromwich's new book about the trial, 'Dragon on Centre Street,' Azzarello's full story is told for the first time. Bromwich's book takes readers inside the courtroom for an accurate and compelling account of Trump's seven-week criminal trial, inviting readers behind the curtain of the Times's reporting process on the historic case. He also reveals several newsy nuggets, including how porn actress Stormy Daniels missed her flight to New York and shook up the order of witnesses. But it is Bromwich's deep reporting of those on the fringe of the trial, like Azzarello, that stands out most. Azzarello grew up on Long Island. Bromwich detailed how he was interested in civics and 'alternatives to the mainstream,' like socialism or anarchism, and was not upset when Trump was elected in 2016, given his interest in widespread change. One of his sisters had worked as a wardrobe assistant on The Celebrity Apprentice, invisible string connecting Azzarello and Trump long before that fateful day outside the courthouse. He was close with his mother, who died in April 2022 after a battle with chronic illness. In the spring of 2023, he became 'captured by an obsession' that 'almost everyone' in American public life was secretly fascist – Trump, former President Biden, the Clintons, Elon Musk, Whoopi Goldberg and more. He posted these beliefs on social media 'constantly' but struggled to convince anyone, including his father, Richard, and two sisters. He struggled to be noticed. Azzarello's online persona laid bare his personal struggles. He described himself as a 'research investigator' on LinkedIn, his bio warning that 'We've got a secret fascism problem.' On Instagram, he'd bombard his followers with his theory. When he'd talk about his theory, his whole personality – even his voice – would change. 'Max was increasingly in pain,' Bromwich wrote. 'No one would listen to him.' In August 2023, months after Trump's indictment, Azzarello was arrested several times for disorderly conduct. When his probation ended in April 2024, he made plans to travel to New York, where cameras would be fixed on Trump's trial – and he could finally get his message out. Minutes after the jury selection process concluded, Azzarello doused himself in liquid from a canister held above his head and lit a flame. He was quickly consumed by the fire. Bromwich reported that Azzarello's father had turned on MSNBC to see the latest on jury selection. A reporter in front of the courthouse described the spectacle of a man on fire. 'Oh no. Please don't be Max,' Richard Azzarello said to himself before putting the thought out of his mind, Bromwich reported. But about 90 minutes later, he received a 'hysterical' call from one of his daughters. Want to learn more? Bromwich will appear in conversation with New York Times Washington correspondent Michael Schmidt at Politics & Prose Thursday. Buried deep in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — the budget reconciliation bill making its way through Congress — is a provision that could sharply limit district courts' ability to enforce their rulings blocking Trump's policies The provision instructs that no U.S. court 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. It cites Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), which requires federal judges to decide whether a bond is needed when an injunction or temporary restraining order is sought. Usually, judges waive the bond requirement when a plaintiff alleges a constitutional violation by the U.S. government, FindLaw managing editor Joseph Fawbush wrote in a blog post about the provision. 'Otherwise, it could be hard for many plaintiffs to challenge government laws and actions as unconstitutional,' he wrote. Judges have issued dozens of preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders against the Trump administration, oftentimes waiving the bond requirement. Just last week, U.S. District Judge Myong Joun, an appointee of former President Biden who serves in Boston, did so when he blocked Trump's dismantling of the Education Department. However, under the new rule, contempt enforcement would not be possible when a judge waives the bond. The orders are enforced by the U.S. Marshals Service, whose funding is appropriated by Congress. That would render toothless any injunctions or temporary restraining orders issued against the Trump administration where the security requirement was waived, because judges would not be able to enforce contempt rulings if the orders were violated. The 1,116-page budget reconciliation bill, including the contempt provision, has already passed the House but it has yet to reach the Senate for a vote. Read Tuesday's full order list here. IN: Compassionate release The Supreme Court agreed to take up one of the relists we highlighted in last week's Petition Pile, Fernandez v. United States. The third time was the charm for Joe Fernandez, who twice before unsuccessfully petitioned the Supreme Court to review his case at earlier stages. This time, however, the court agreed to take up a question that could shorten Fernandez's life sentence for a murder-for-hire conspiracy to time served. At issue is the scope of judges' discretion under the compassionate release statute, which allows courts to reduce a defendant's sentence for 'extraordinary and compelling reasons.' Fernandez was sentenced to life in prison over his role in a 2000 shooting that killed two members of a Mexican drug cartel, who traveled to New York to collect a debt from a drug ringleader. Raising questions about the jury's verdict and noting his co-conspirators received lower sentences, a federal district judge granted Fernandez's motion for compassionate release. Fernandez petitioned the Supreme Court after an appeals court reversed the judge's ruling. The appeals court said Fernandez's arguments didn't qualify as 'extraordinary and compelling reasons' because they circumvented the normal process for challenging the validity of a criminal conviction. The justices will now review the matter, with oral arguments likely to be set for late this year. OUT: Flat Oak and student's 'two-genders' shirt Finally, at last! After relisting Apache Stronghold v. United States a whopping 15 times, the court spoke on Tuesday. We've covered the backstory in several previous editions, but here's a quick recap: The federal government is preparing to transfer Flat Oak, a sacred Apache religious site, so it can be converted into a copper mine. The petition sought to block the transfer on religious grounds. The court turned away the petition alongside a 17-page dissent from Justice Neil Gorsuch, who was joined by fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, complete with a map and photo. Gorsuch, the Supreme Court's staunchest defender of American Indian rights, called the court's refusal 'a grievous mistake' with consequences 'that threaten to reverberate for generations.' 'Just imagine if the government sought to demolish a historic cathedral on so questionable a chain of legal reasoning. I have no doubt that we would find that case worth our time,' Gorsuch wrote. 'Faced with the government's plan to destroy an ancient site of tribal worship, we owe the Apaches no less. They may live far from Washington, D.C., and their history and religious practices may be unfamiliar to many. But that should make no difference.' Justice Samuel Alito recused from the case, and the duo failed to convince at least two more of their colleagues to take up the dispute. Separately, the court turned away another petition we highlighted when it was first relisted. In L.M. v. Town of Middleborough, Massachusetts, the court declined to hear a student's challenge to his school district blocking him from wearing a T-shirt to class that reads, 'There are only two genders.' Thomas and Alito both publicly dissented. The student claimed the ban violates the Supreme Court's 1969 decision, Tinker v. Des Moines, that famously permitted students to wear to school armbands protesting the Vietnam War. But a lower court rejected the claim. In a brief, solo dissent, Thomas repeated his longstanding criticism of Tinker but stressed it remains binding precedent that lower courts must follow. Alito authored a far longer dissent, saying the lower court had distorted the Supreme Court's First Amendment caselaw. 'Just as in Tinker, some of L.M.'s classmates found his speech upsetting,' wrote Alito, joined by Thomas. 'Feeling upset, however, is an unavoidable part of living in our 'often disputatious' society.' The court has relisted four petitions for the first time, adding to the nine others we've covered in previous editions that remain pending. The first new relist, Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections, implicates states that allow mail ballots to be received after Election Day. Republicans have looked to crack down on the practice by suing in court. A lower court rejected such a challenge brought by Rep. Michael Bost (R-Ill.) and two of Trump's electors from Illinois, finding they had no legal standing. Bost and the electors want the Supreme Court to review that finding and revive their case. In Hamm v. Smith, the justices will return to the death row case of Joseph Clifton Smith. In November, the court sent Smith's case back to a lower court to clarify its ruling surrounding his low IQ test scores and whether they make him ineligible for the death penalty. Days later, the lower court again affirmed he is intellectually disabled and thus ineligible for capital punishment. Alabama's Republican attorney general now seeks the Supreme Court's review, with the Trump administration's backing. In The GEO Group v. Menocal, the court is asked to wade into a dispute concerning a major government contractor that operates immigration detention facilities. Alejandro Menocal, who was detained in GEO's Aurora, Colo., facility, brought forced labor claims against the company. Government contractors have immunity from damages suits when the contractor was 'lawfully' carrying out work 'authorized and directed' by the government, but a judge ruled GEO's alleged conduct went beyond that so the case could move forward. The company tried to appeal, but the circuit court found the lower ruling isn't immediately appealable, and GEO needs to wait for the trial court proceedings to conclude. GEO now wants the Supreme Court to reverse that ruling and allow the company's immunity appeal to immediately move forward. The final relist, Hencely v. Fluor Corporation, also concerns government contractors. Former U.S. Army Specialist Winston Hencely, who was critically injured in 2016 by a suicide bomber at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan, is seeking to revive his lawsuit against the defense contractor that employed the bomber. An Army investigation found the contractor breached its contract with the Army and the breach contributed to the attack. Hencely attempted to sue under South Carolina state law, but an appeals court held that his claims are preempted by federal law. Hencely says the justices should take up the case to resolve a split among the lower courts about how to interpret a 1988 Supreme Court decision on the issue. Today Thursday Friday Monday Tuesday We'll be back next Wednesday with additional reporting and insights. In the meantime, keep up with our coverage here.
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Questions remain over US Supreme Court's Fed seat carveout
The US Supreme Court on Thursday stressed that the Federal Reserve would not be affected by its granting of President Donald Trump's emergency request to fire Joe Biden's appointees in key independent agencies at will. Not everyone is convinced. Some legal experts are interpreting the conservative majority's comments as an attempt to keep the markets calm after a series of disruptions were triggered by the White House's attempts to rein in the central bank's independence — including comments by Trump about firing Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, which he later clawed back. 'The court is just trying to calm markets without necessarily telegraphing how it might rule in a future case involving the Federal Reserve,' Brian Knight, senior counsel at the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom, said. Todd Phillips, assistant professor of legal studies at Georgia State University, agreed: 'They were clearly just putting that paragraph about the Fed in to ensure that markets don't freak.' The underlying case revolves around a decades-old precedent, known as Humphrey's Executor, that prevents the president from firing officials at most independent agencies without cause. Trump won some key concessions from the Supreme Court in 2020, when he was permitted to fire the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. But efforts ramped up in his second term, sparking concerns that future rulings could hand Trump more tools to rein in the Fed's independence. Already, his Treasury Department has pursued greater control over the central bank's supervisory policies. However, the majority wrote that Thursday's order does not sweep in Fed officials because the central bank is a 'uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States.' The minority wrote that the cited opinion 'provides no support' for that argument. 'This is a judicial fairyland,' said Aaron Klein, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. He likened it to Harry Reid's argument that the only judicial nominees subject to the filibuster should be Supreme Court justices: 'It's an untenable carveout.' Powell said last month that he did not think the NLRB case would impact the Fed. Still, 'we're monitoring very carefully,' he said. Some, including former Fed Gov. Dan Tarullo, say the Supreme Court can strike down Humphrey's Executor without affecting the central bank — including by referring back to 'its arguable ancestry,' as Tarullo describes it, the way the majority did on Thursday. But others say that argument is a blunt instrument that fails to address the specific question of whether Trump can fire Fed officials. 'The Federal Reserve is a very different organization than those institutions,' Knight said. 'So earlier precedent holding those banks to be constitutional, while relevant, is not necessarily dispositive.' Knight and others expect the Supreme Court to provide more details on how it plans to treat the Fed in its final ruling. Its order will remain in place until then. 'There will likely be another opportunity for them to further explain their thinking and how the Fed can be carved out,' Phillips said. 'That being said, I don't see how they can do it — and the red crumbs they laid yesterday show that they're not going to be very legal about it.'
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court rules Trump can fire 2 agency heads, at least for now
May 22 (UPI) -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday in favor of President Donald Trump's firing of two Democratic board members of independent oversight agencies as litigation over their removal continues. The conservative-leaning high court ruled 6-3 in support of the government's request for an emergency order staying several lower-court rulings that had ordered the reinstatement of Gwynne Wilcox to the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy Harris to the Merit Systems Protection Board. All three liberal justices dissented. Wilcox was removed from the labor board by President Donald Trump on Jan. 27, with no cause given. Harris was fired by the president on Feb. 10, also without reason. Both sued the government in response. District courts ruled that they were unlawfully dismissed by the president, arguing Trump exceeded his power in doing so. The courts pointed to a 1935 Supreme Court decision, Humphrey's Executor, that permits Congress to limit the president's ability to fire officials from independent agencies. Both Wilcox and Harris were appointed by President Joe Biden and confirmed by the Senate. Wilcox has three years remaining in her term, and Harris has four. The boards were also created by Congress as bipartisan and independent. They were removed as Trump fired thousands of government workers, including heads of independent agencies, in a federal government overhaul to consolidate power under the executive branch. In the majority ruling on Thursday, the Supreme Court cited the Constitution, which vests executive powers in the president, including the authority to remove officers without cause who "exercise considerable executive power." The justices did not rule on the merits of the case, explaining that their stay is does not determine whether either the NLRB or MSPB exercise executive power, and that question is better left to ongoing litigation in the case. The ruling added that the government faces "greater risk of harm" by allowing the fired board members to resume their positions and exercise executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being denied reinstatement. "A stay is appropriate to avoid the disruptive effect of the repeated removal and reinstatement of officers during the pendency of this litigation," the majority wrote. The Supreme Court also cooled concerns raised by Wilcox and Harris in the case about implications their removals might have on removal protections for other independent agencies, specifically the Federal Reserve Board of Governors or the Federal Open Market Committee. "The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States," the majority said. In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan, writing on behalf of the other two liberal justices, accused the president of effectively disregarding Humphrey's, saying he either wants it overruled or confined and is acting on that belief by taking the law into his own hands. "Not since the 1950s (or even before) has a President, without a legitimate reason, tried to remove an officer from a classic independent agency -- a multi-member, bipartisan commission exercising regulatory power whose government statute contains a for-cause provision," she wrote. "Yet now the President has discharged, concededly without cause such officers, including a member of the NLRB (Gwynne Wilcox) and a member of the MSPB (Cathy Harris). Today, this court effectively blesses those deeds. I would not." She continued by stating that the decision in this case was an easy one to make, and was made correctly by the lower courts. Trump, she said, has no legal right to relief, and Congress, by statute, has protected members of the NLRB and MSPB from removal by the president except for good cause. To fire Wilcox and Harris without good cause is to upend Humphrey's, she argued. "For that reason, the majority's order granting the President's request for a stay is nothing short of extraordinary," she said. "And so the order allows the President to overrule Humphrey's by fiat."
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court upholds Trump's removal of Biden appointees from federal boards
The Supreme Court upheld President Donald Trump's removal of two Democratic appointees from federal boards, handing the administration a legal victory and settling a high-stakes dispute over the president's power to fire agency officials. The Thursday ruling comes after Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts agreed to temporarily halt the reinstatement of National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) member Gwynne Wilcox and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) member Cathy Harris, two Democrat appointees who were abruptly terminated by the Trump administration this year. Both had challenged their terminations as "unlawful" in separate lawsuits filed in D.C. federal court. However, the high court suggested that it could block attempts to fire Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, who, according to Trump, has complained has not cut interest rates fast enough. Appeals Court Blocks Trump From Firing Federal Board Members, Tees Up Supreme Court Fight The issue confronting the justices was whether the board members, both appointed by President Joe Biden, can stay in their jobs while the larger fight continues over what to do with a 90-year-old Supreme Court decision known as Humphrey's Executor, in which the court unanimously ruled that presidents cannot fire independent board members without cause. Read On The Fox News App The court's three liberal justices dissented. "Not since the 1950s (or even before) has a President, without a legitimate reason, tried to remove an officer from a classic independent agency," Justice Elena Kagan wrote, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Kagan wrote that her colleagues were telegraphing what would happen. "The impatience to get on with things—to now hand the President the most unitary, meaning also the most subservient, administration since Herbert Hoover (and maybe ever)—must reveal how that eventual decision will go," she wrote. Lawyers for the Trump administration urged the Supreme Court to either keep Wilcox and Harris off the job while the case moves through the lower courts, or to resolve the issue directly. They asked the justices to grant certiorari before judgment – a fast-track procedure the court uses occasionally to bypass the appeals process in cases of significant national importance. They urged that Wilcox and Harris not be reinstated to their positions, arguing in their reply brief that the "costs of such reinstatements are immense." They argued that keeping both Wilcox and Harris in place would "entrust" the president's powers "for the months or years that it could take the courts to resolve this litigation," something they said "would manifestly cause irreparable harm to the President and to the separation of powers." "The President would lose control of critical parts of the Executive Branch for a significant portion of his term, and he would likely have to spend further months voiding actions taken by improperly reinstated agency leaders." In April, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit voted 7–4 to restore Wilcox and Harris to their respective boards, citing Supreme Court precedent in Humphrey's Executor v. United States and Wiener v. United States – landmark rulings that upheld limits on the president's power to remove members of independent federal agencies. The majority noted that the Supreme Court has never overturned the decades-old precedent upholding removal protections for members of independent, multimember adjudicatory boards – such as the NLRB and MSPB – and said that precedent supported reinstating Wilcox and Harris. It also rejected the Trump administration's request for an administrative stay, which would have allowed their removals to remain in place while the challenge proceeds in court. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly told the courts of appeals to follow extant Supreme Court precedent unless and until that Court itself changes it or overturns it," judges noted in their opinion. The ruling would have temporarily returned Harris and Wilcox to their posts – but the victory was short-lived. The Trump administration quickly appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted an emergency administrative stay blocking their reinstatement. In their own Supreme Court filings, lawyers for Wilcox and Harris argued that the court should reinstate them to their roles on their respective boards until a federal appeals court can consider the matter. Appeals Court Blocks Trump Admin's Deportation Flights In Alien Enemies Act Immigration Suit Both Wilcox and Harris opposed the administration's effort to fast-track the case, warning against skipping the normal appeals process and rushing arguments. "Rushing such important matters risks making mistakes and destabilizing other areas of the law," Harris's lawyers told the Supreme Court this week. Wilcox, the NLRB member, echoed this argument in her own brief to the high court. Counsel for Wilcox cited the potential harm in removing her from the three-member NLRB panel – which they argued in their filing could bring "an immediate and indefinite halt to the NLRB's critical work of adjudicating labor-relations disputes." "The President's choice to instead remove Ms. Wilcox does not bring the Board closer in line with his preferred policies; it prevents the agency from carrying out its congressionally mandated duties at all," they said. Harris and Wilcox's cases are among several legal challenges attempting to clearly define the executive's power. Hampton Dellinger, a Biden appointee previously tapped to head the Office of Special Counsel, sued the Trump administration over his termination. Dellinger filed suit in D.C. district court after his Feb. 7 firing. He had maintained the argument that, by law, he could only be dismissed from his position for job performance problems, which were not cited in an email dismissing him from his post. Dellinger dropped his suit against the administration after the D.C. appellate court issued an unsigned order siding with the Trump administration. The Justice Department, for its part, said in February a letter to Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., that it was seeking to overturn Humphrey's Executor. The Associated Press contributed to this report. Original article source: Supreme Court upholds Trump's removal of Biden appointees from federal boards
