Latest news with #Katsas
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Fed Takeover, Judge Firings, Erosion Of Guards Against Autocracy: Judge Lays Out Stakes Of Trump Agency Takeover
While the conservative judges on Friday tried to find a way to overturn Supreme Court precedent before the Court itself gets a chance to do it, the sole liberal on a three-judge appeals court panel used the hearing to lay bare the ramifications of President Trump's attempt to take over independent agencies. 'Your position is: We're not allowed to have independent agencies in this country even if they can be beneficial, like the Federal Reserve,' Judge Florence Pan said to the DOJ's Harry Graver, adding: 'Can you explain why that's a good way to run a government?' Trump had fired members of the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board at the beginning of his term, a couple of whom filed lawsuits that will likely determine whether independent agencies can continue to have protections from at-will firing. The Supreme Court has been steadily hacking away at those protections, and if they clear the way for Trump to fire these members too, the entire executive branch — including agencies whose independence have long been considered sacrosanct, like the Federal Reserve — will be under Trump's direct power. Pan, a Biden appointee, pushed Graver on whether administrative law judges could be fired at will under his hypothetical new world order, and admonished him for evading her questions about whether the leaders of the Federal Reserve could be axed at Trump's will. 'If a president is running for reelection, he would like the Fed to lower interest rates to goose the economy and he pressures the Fed to do so and the Fed says no, he could fire the Fed and all the governors — and that enhances liberty?' she asked incredulously. The Trump appointees on the panel, Judges Justin Walker and Greg Katsas, were carrying out different missions. Walker has already ruled in favor of the Trump administration for these firings as part of a different panel. He wrote then that Humphrey's Executor, the Supreme Court precedent that protects members of certain independent agencies from being fired, is a 'benched quarterback' and would construe its power so narrowly as to overturn it in essence. Katsas, a former deputy White House counsel under Trump, took a more measured tone. While clearly amenable to the government's arguments, he struggled more with how to greenlight the firings while Humphrey's Executor is still good law. 'The only thing you're willing to definitively put in the Humphrey's bucket is some board that runs the Kennedy Center or something,' Katsas said skeptically to the DOJ's attorney, asking if that's really a 'plausible' reading of the Supreme Court case that explicitly preserved Humphrey's Executor as good precedent. All of these cases are really just overture. The fired board members have been reinstated for brief stints while the litigation unwinds, but the lower court action is just, as one judge put it, a 'speed bump' on the way to the Supreme Court. That some conservative judges have been willing to at least temporarily permit the firings is a helpful metric to show how far right they've moved; this case should be open and shut on the lower levels, while Supreme Court precedent still protects these board members from at-will firing. But the administration has been (candidly) trudging through the lower courts as necessary hurdles to get before the Supreme Court, where it's betting that enough of the bench's right wing is ready to overturn the last substantive independent agency protection. 'Separation of powers is…supposed to prevent autocracy and the question is, why are these more than 30 agencies — which were designed by Congress to be independent — why do we need to move them under the control of the executive? Pan asked.
Yahoo
17-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Appeals court panel hears arguments on AP's access to White House
A federal appeals court panel appeared skeptical at a hearing Thursday of the Trump administration's request that it immediately lift a lower court's order restoring the Associated Press to the White House press pool. A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals seemed wary of the administration's arguments that they must immediately intervene in the case, saying there wasn't a risk of some imminent harm, especially since the Associated Press already had a longstanding, permanent slot in the small group of reporters who get access to the Oval Office, Air Force One and other White House spaces. 'No doubt it will stick in the White House's craw, but it is the same arrangement that people have been living under,' said Judge Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee. A lower court judge last week ordered the White House to restore the Associated Press' access after Trump banned the news organization for refusing to adopt his renaming of the Gulf of Mexico as the 'Gulf of America.' The administration immediately appealed that order, arguing that Air Force One, the Oval Office and other spaces in the White House are akin to personal and private spaces where public access can be restricted. But the appeals court panel wasn't receptive to the administration's emergency plea. The panel did not issue a ruling Thursday and did not indicate when it might do so. Still, two members of the panel appeared sympathetic to some of the Trump administration's arguments. Katsas and Judge Neomi Rao, another Trump appointee, affirmed the president's broad powers to establish or abolish a press pool altogether or to reserve interviews and privileged access for favored outlets and reporters. The Associated Press didn't dispute the president's right to revoke access for all outlets. The wire service argued instead that the issue is the interference with its existing rights and access, and that Trump apparently banned the outlet as retaliation. Many cases against the Trump administration 'involve injunctions that direct how the president performs official duties,' Katsas said. 'We don't have that here.' He added that the argument that the president can simply abolish the press pool seems stronger than an argument that the injunction ordering restoration of AP's access will 'imperil the presidency.' The Trump administration has changed its press pool rules multiple times since the spat with the AP began. After the AP sued, the White House ended the White House Correspondents' Association's historical role in selecting the press pool members, saying it would make those assignments itself. U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee, ruled last week that Trump's actions were 'brazen' retaliation against the AP for its editorial choices, and likely violate the First Amendment. Then, on Tuesday night, administration officials said that the AP and other wire services, including Reuters and Bloomberg, would no longer share a rotating slot in the pool. It's unclear whether the latest move complies with McFadden's order, which effectively required the administration to treat the AP the same as other news outlets.
Politico
17-04-2025
- Politics
- Politico
Appeals court panel hears arguments on AP's access to White House
A federal appeals court panel appeared skeptical at a hearing Thursday of the Trump administration's request that it immediately lift a lower court's order restoring the Associated Press to the White House press pool. A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals seemed wary of the administration's arguments that they must immediately intervene in the case, saying there wasn't a risk of some imminent harm, especially since the Associated Press already had a longstanding, permanent slot in the small group of reporters who get access to the Oval Office, Air Force One and other White House spaces. 'No doubt it will stick in the White House's craw, but it is the same arrangement that people have been living under,' said Judge Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee. A lower court judge last week ordered the White House to restore the Associated Press' access after Trump banned the news organization for refusing to adopt his renaming of the Gulf of Mexico as the 'Gulf of America.' The administration immediately appealed that order, arguing that Air Force One, the Oval Office and other spaces in the White House are akin to personal and private spaces where public access can be restricted. But the appeals court panel wasn't receptive to the administration's emergency plea. The panel did not issue a ruling Thursday and did not indicate when it might do so. Still, two members of the panel appeared sympathetic to some of the Trump administration's arguments. Katsas and Judge Neomi Rao, another Trump appointee, affirmed the president's broad powers to establish or abolish a press pool altogether or to reserve interviews and privileged access for favored outlets and reporters. The Associated Press didn't dispute the president's right to revoke access for all outlets. The wire service argued instead that the issue is the interference with its existing rights and access, and that Trump apparently banned the outlet as retaliation. Many cases against the Trump administration 'involve injunctions that direct how the president performs official duties,' Katsas said. 'We don't have that here.' He added that the argument that the president can simply abolish the press pool seems stronger than an argument that the injunction ordering restoration of AP's access will 'imperil the presidency.' The Trump administration has changed its press pool rules multiple times since the spat with the AP began. After the AP sued, the White House ended the White House Correspondents' Association's historical role in selecting the press pool members, saying it would make those assignments itself. U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee, ruled last week that Trump's actions were 'brazen' retaliation against the AP for its editorial choices, and likely violate the First Amendment. Then, on Tuesday night, administration officials said that the AP and other wire services, including Reuters and Bloomberg, would no longer share a rotating slot in the pool. It's unclear whether the latest move complies with McFadden's order, which effectively required the administration to treat the AP the same as other news outlets.
Yahoo
19-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Here's the argument Trump hopes will net first major SCOTUS win in second term
In its first appeal of its second term to reach the Supreme Court, the Trump administration is arguing that the judiciary is attempting "to seize executive power" as courts have blocked the president from firing certain federal employees. Experts say the high court will likely be sympathetic to that argument and point to the ferocious dissent from a lower court judge, Trump appointee Greg Katsas, which they said laid the groundwork for Trump's potential victory. "I am of the strong opinion that the devastating dissent written by Judge Katsas will strongly influence the current justices on the Supreme Court," Hans von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, told Fox News Digital. The Justice Department filed an appeal to the Supreme Court in the case involving the firing of Hampton Dellinger, the head of the Special Counsel Office. Dellinger was fired from his role this month and shortly thereafter filed suit against the Trump administration, arguing that his termination was illegal and was "in direct conflict with nearly a century of precedent" delineating proper removal of independent agency officials. Trump Admin Aims For Killing Blow To Independence Of 'Deep State' Agencies A lower court judge initially issued an administrative stay that reinstated Dellinger to his position, to which he was appointed by former President Joe Biden. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declined to block that decision. Read On The Fox News App The lower court then issued a temporary restraining order that reinstated Dellinger for 14 days. The DOJ appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which declined to lift the order on Sunday. The panel, which voted 2-1, was split along party lines, with Katsas dissenting. The Trump-appointed judge wrote that the order "warrants immediate appellate review" as the issue at hand "directs the President to recognize and work with an agency head whom he has already removed." "Where a lower court allegedly impinges on the President's core Article II powers, immediate appellate review should be generally available," Katsas wrote. Katsas said the order "controlling how [the president] performs his official duties" is "virtually unheard of." Katsas also wrote that the order "usurped a core Article II power of the President." In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the DOJ said the case "involves an unprecedented assault on the separation of powers that warrants immediate relief." Trump Admin Seeks Permission To Fire Head Of The Office Of Special Counsel "Until now, as far as we are aware, no court in American history has wielded an injunction to force the President to retain an agency head whom the President believes should not be entrusted with executive power and to prevent the President from relying on his preferred replacement," the appeal reads. The Trump administration referred back to Katsas' dissent numerous times in its appeal, arguing that the Court cannot allow courts "to seize executive power by dictating to the President how long he must continue employing an agency head against his will." Von Spakovsky called the appellate court's decision declining to lift the order "really outrageous and an unprecedented abuse of their judicial authority." Justice Sotomayor Says 'Court Decisions Stand' As Liberals Fret That Trump May Not Accept Legal Rulings "The Supreme Court itself has said that the president has the unrestricted authority to remove the single head of an executive agency, as Katsas points out, and yet these courts are thumbing their noses at the Supreme Court and blithely violating those precedents," von Spakovsky said. Likewise, constitutional law attorney and Fox News Contributor Jonathan Turley said he expects the justices to "resonate" with the arguments made in Katsas' dissent. "While the panel ruled on a technical barrier to the review of a temporary restraining order, the dissent correctly points out that this is an extraordinary claim of authority by the district court," Turley said. Von Spakovsky called the appellate court's decision "one of the worst examples of judicial activism we have seen" and said "it needs to be immediately and decisively stopped by the Supreme Court." He continued on to advise that the court "should forgo its usual politeness and collegiality and severely criticize the district court judge for her contemptuous behavior as well as the appellate court judges for not stopping it."Original article source: Here's the argument Trump hopes will net first major SCOTUS win in second term
Fox News
19-02-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Here's the argument Trump hopes will net first major SCOTUS win in second term
In its first appeal of its second term to reach the Supreme Court, the Trump administration is arguing that the judiciary is attempting "to seize executive power" as courts have blocked the president from firing certain federal employees. Experts say the high court will likely be sympathetic to that argument and point to the ferocious dissent from a lower court judge, Trump appointee Greg Katsas, which they said laid the groundwork for Trump's potential victory. "I am of the strong opinion that the devastating dissent written by Judge Katsas will strongly influence the current justices on the Supreme Court," Hans von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, told Fox News Digital. The Justice Department filed an appeal to the Supreme Court in the case involving the firing of Hampton Dellinger, the head of the Special Counsel Office. Dellinger was fired from his role this month and shortly thereafter filed suit against the Trump administration, arguing that his termination was illegal and was "in direct conflict with nearly a century of precedent" delineating proper removal of independent agency officials. A lower court judge initially issued an administrative stay that reinstated Dellinger to his position, to which he was appointed by former President Joe Biden. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declined to block that decision. The lower court then issued a temporary restraining order that reinstated Dellinger for 14 days. The DOJ appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which declined to lift the order on Sunday. The panel, which voted 2-1, was split along party lines, with Katsas dissenting. The Trump-appointed judge wrote that the order "warrants immediate appellate review" as the issue at hand "directs the President to recognize and work with an agency head whom he has already removed." "Where a lower court allegedly impinges on the President's core Article II powers, immediate appellate review should be generally available," Katsas wrote. Katsas said the order "controlling how [the president] performs his official duties" is "virtually unheard of." Katsas also wrote that the order "usurped a core Article II power of the President." In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the DOJ said the case "involves an unprecedented assault on the separation of powers that warrants immediate relief." "Until now, as far as we are aware, no court in American history has wielded an injunction to force the President to retain an agency head whom the President believes should not be entrusted with executive power and to prevent the President from relying on his preferred replacement," the appeal reads. The Trump administration referred back to Katsas' dissent numerous times in its appeal, arguing that the Court cannot allow courts "to seize executive power by dictating to the President how long he must continue employing an agency head against his will." Von Spakovsky called the appellate court's decision declining to lift the order "really outrageous and an unprecedented abuse of their judicial authority." "The Supreme Court itself has said that the president has the unrestricted authority to remove the single head of an executive agency, as Katsas points out, and yet these courts are thumbing their noses at the Supreme Court and blithely violating those precedents," von Spakovsky said. Likewise, constitutional law attorney and Fox News Contributor Jonathan Turley said he expects the justices to "resonate" with the arguments made in Katsas' dissent. "While the panel ruled on a technical barrier to the review of a temporary restraining order, the dissent correctly points out that this is an extraordinary claim of authority by the district court," Turley said. Von Spakovsky called the appellate court's decision "one of the worst examples of judicial activism we have seen" and said "it needs to be immediately and decisively stopped by the Supreme Court." He continued on to advise that the court "should forgo its usual politeness and collegiality and severely criticize the district court judge for her contemptuous behavior as well as the appellate court judges for not stopping it."
