Latest news with #Republican-appointed
Gulf Today
7 hours ago
- Politics
- Gulf Today
Fundamental rights shouldn't depend on your ZIP code
Ronald Brownstein, Tribune News Service One of the most powerful trends in modern politics is the growing separation between red and blue states. Now, the Supreme Court looks poised to widen that chasm. Over roughly the past decade, virtually all Republican-controlled states have rolled back rights and liberties across a broad front: banning abortion; restricting voting rights; censoring how teachers can discuss race, gender and sexual orientation; and prohibiting transition care for transgender minors. No Democratic-leaning state has done any of those things. The result is the greatest gulf since the era of Jim Crow state-sponsored segregation between the rights guaranteed in some states and denied in others. The Republican-appointed Supreme Court majority has abetted this separation. Its decisions eviscerating federal oversight of state voting rules (in the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder case) and rescinding the national right to abortion (in 2022's Dobbs decision) freed red states to lurch right on both fronts. In oral arguments this month, the GOP-appointed justices appeared ready to push the states apart in a new way: by restricting federal courts from issuing nationwide injunctions. Concern about nationwide injunctions has been growing in both parties. Such injunctions remained relatively rare during the two-term presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, but Trump faced 64 of them in his first term and Joe Biden 14 in his first three years in office, according to a Harvard Law Review tabulation. Through the first 100 days of Trump's second term, federal courts have already imposed 25 nationwide injunctions against him. Trump has been uniquely vulnerable to this judicial pushback because he has moved so aggressively to challenge—and, in many instances, disregard — previously understood limits on presidential authority. But there's no question that each party now views nationwide injunctions as a critical weapon to stymie a president from the other party. Coalitions of red and blue state attorneys general have become especially reliant on the tactic. Each side has grown adept at challenging the incumbent president's actions primarily in district and circuit courts dominated by appointees from their own party, notes Paul Nolette, a Marquette University political scientist who tracks the state AG lawsuits. This aggressive forum shopping usually produces the desired result. Looking at the district court level, the Harvard analysis found that judges appointed by presidents of the other party imposed almost 95% of the nationwide injunctions directed against Biden or Trump in his first term. At the appellate court level, Adam Feldman, who founded the Empirical SCOTUS blog, calculated that the conservative 5th Circuit was much more likely to block presidential actions under Biden than Trump, while the liberal 9th circuit was, to an even greater extent, more likely to block Trump than Biden. These stark outcomes capture how the Supreme Court's verdict on injunctions could widen the distance between the states. If the Supreme Court hobbles their use, it will virtually guarantee that more federal courts simultaneously issue conflicting decisions to uphold or invalidate presidential actions. Trump's executive orders would be enforced in some places and not others. In the most extreme example—which plainly troubled the Court at its hearing—children born in the US to undocumented parents potentially would become citizens in some states, but not in others, depending on which courts allow Trump to overrule the 14th Amendment's guarantee of birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court would surely try to resolve more of these disputes, since conflicting appellate rulings are a big reason why it accepts cases. But the court would face practical limits on how many such disagreements it could referee. Across Trump's first term and Biden's four years combined, the Supreme Court considered only about 1 in 10 cases brought by attorneys general from the party out of power, Nolette calculates. Even if the court addressed more cases through its emergency docket, banning nationwide injunctions would likely result in more unresolved conflicts among the circuits on core questions of both presidential power and basic civil rights and liberties. That would harden the red-blue divide. Though the overlap isn't perfect, most Democratic-leaning states are covered by federal circuits in which Democratic presidents appointed most of the judges, and vice versa for Republican-leaning states. (The principal reason for this correlation is a Senate tradition that makes confirmation votes for federal district court nominees contingent on their home-state Senators' approval; the Senate applied that rule to federal appeals court nominees as well until 2018.) The protection of Democratic-leaning circuit courts could allow blue states to mostly fend off Trump's attempts to erase basic rights (like birthright citizenship) within their borders, or blunt his efforts to force them to adopt conservative social policies (as he is attempting by threatening their federal funding.) Conversely, the receptivity of Republican-leaning circuit courts would likely allow Trump to impose his agenda across red America, except in the (probably rare) cases when the Supreme Court intervenes to stop him. The nation's legal landscape would trend even more toward a patchwork. 'We've seen a huge divergence in red and blue states in policy and law ... and a potential ban on nationwide injunctions would just accelerate this trend,' said Jake Grumbach, a University of California at Berkeley political scientist who has studied the growing differences among the states. In a long arc spanning roughly from the Supreme Court decision banning segregated schools in 1954 to its ruling establishing nationwide access to same-sex marriage in 2015, the courts and Congress mostly nationalized civil rights and limited states' ability to curtail them. Now we are reverting toward a pre-1960s nation in which your rights largely depend on your zip code. Nationwide judicial injunctions are a flawed tool, and in a perfect world the two parties would collaborate on bipartisan reforms to limit them for future presidents. At some point, it would make sense to consider proposals that have emerged in both parties to require that a three-judge panel, rather than a single judge, approve any nationwide injunction. But to abruptly ban them now risks further unraveling the seams of an already fraying America.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Why Trump's attack on the conservative legal movement is a big deal
With Donald Trump's rhetoric, it's often difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff, the statements-of-intent from the just-venting, and the 'literal' from the merely 'serious.' His social media missive Thursday night suddenly attacking the conservative legal movement should probably be put in the former categories. It could be one of the most significant moments in Trump's long-running attempt to consolidate power – and sideline both Congress and the courts – in his second term. Republican- and even Trump-appointed judges have increasingly formed something of a bulwark against Trump's power grabs. And the president has (at least for now) declared war on them, too. In sum: Trump could be trying to bulldoze one of the biggest remaining impediments to his quest for unchecked power. His Truth Social post ran more than 500 words. And it was a lot. But the crux of it was his decision to attack former Federalist Society head Leonard Leo. Leo is an architect of not just the conservative legal movement but also many of Trump's judicial picks in his first term. One study found 80% of Trump's appeals-court judges were tied to the Federalist Society, as were all three of his Supreme Court picks. Trump called Leo a 'sleazebag' – in quotation marks – and 'a bad person who, in his own way, probably hates America.' He said Leo and the Federalist Society gave him bad advice on the judges he picked. And perhaps most notably, he posited that maybe Leo was part of some kind of conspiracy. It's all very suggestive. 'He openly brags how he controls Judges, and even Justices of the United States Supreme Court,' Trump said, before adding: 'I hope that is not so, and don't believe it is!' Trump isn't saying this, but he's saying it. This, of course, doesn't come out of nowhere. While the White House has frequently attacked judges who rule against Trump's actions as 'radical' leftists, an increasing number of the rulings against Trump have come from judges appointed by Republicans and in, in some cases, judges appointed by Trump The ruling the president was responding to in his Thursday night post came from a three-judge federal trade panel, which includes a Trump-appointed judge, that struck down many of his most significant tariffs (an appeals court later stayed that decision). Earlier this week, another Trump-appointed judge temporarily halted the administration's efforts to block congestion pricing in New York City. And there's plenty more where that came from, from both Republican-appointed judges and Trump-appointed ones. Many of the adverse rulings pertain to Trump's rapid and legally dubious deportation efforts. A study earlier in Trump's second term from CNN Supreme Court analyst and Georgetown University Law Center professor Stephen Vladeck made clear it wasn't just 'leftist' judges who were standing up to Trump and issuing injunctions the White House has frequently derided; when Trump's actions came before Republican-appointed judges, they too were issuing injunctions at a remarkable 45% clip. All of which undermines the White House's oft-invoked claims that this is something of a 'judicial coup' engineered by a bunch of liberal judges. If Republican- and even Trump-appointed judges are doing it, too, that suggests this is really about Trump overstepping, not the judges. So perhaps recognizing the growing problems with that talking point, Trump has decided to include Republican appointees and even judges he himself picked in the grand conspiracy of usurpers. To be clear, there is no real evidence of any such conspiracy. Leo and the Federalist Society are surely formidable figures in American politics – ones whose goals have often overlapped with Trump and created a symbiosis. Trump and other top Republicans have hailed their successful effort to steer the American judiciary to the right during his first term, most notably in the now-6-3-majority Supreme Court. Some of that was happenstance – getting vacancies at the right time – but some of it was the result of a rather bare-knuckle and very political approach to recasting the judiciary. (See: Then-Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell not even giving Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland a hearing in 2016). But a more logical explanation for the current clash between Trump and these GOP- and Trump-appointed judges is a lot simpler than these judges being under Leo's thumb. These are judges, after all, who built their careers in a different era and corner of the conservative movement. They're generally more traditional establishment conservatives – the kind that used to have more of a foothold in federal politics but have steadily headed for the exits or changed their ways – rather than the brand of Trump loyalists who have increasingly taken over the party. They also have lifetime appointments, which insulates them from the political winds of the day. So where does this leave us? White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller told CNN's Pamela Brown on Friday that the White House will not use the Federalist Society to make judicial picks moving forward. Still, it remains to be seen how much Trump truly presses forward with attacking Leo, the Federalist Society and Republican-appointed judges. Sometimes these moments pass, and Trump makes amends with people he said such awful things about. His attacks here are also a fraught effort, given how much overlap there is between even the Trump-era Republican Party and the Federalist Society. Perhaps Trump views this as a momentary warning flare to Republican-appointed judges, in hopes that they at least feel the pressure. But criticizing them is one thing; suggesting they are beholden to a secret puppet-master who hates America is quite another. And Trump appears motivated to keep it up. Given the makeup of our courts, many of these judges represent pivotal votes for or against Trump's agenda, most notably in the Supreme Court. If these judges keep standing in his way – which wouldn't be surprising, given how brazen many of Trump's moves are – he needs to somehow explain why even seeming ideological allies would do that. And to the extent Trump does marshal his base against even these conservative judges, it's not difficult to see that inching us closer to a truly ugly constitutional clash between the administration and the courts. The administration has already flirted with outright ignoring court orders, which would open up a Pandora's box for our democracy. It might be an unavoidable conflict at this point, and Trump on Thursday sent his first major signal that he's leaning into it.
Winnipeg Free Press
3 days ago
- Business
- Winnipeg Free Press
No surprise: Trump couldn't legally levy tariffs
Opinion It's a big win, but in the end, do wins even matter? A decision by the U.S. Court of International Trade confirmed Wednesday what everybody already knew: that U.S. President Donald Trump can't use trumped-up emergency powers to address magically created emergencies and then implement trade tariffs at his whim. The panel of three judges unanimously ruled that Trump does not have the authority to impose a wide range of global tariffs using the International Economic Emergency Powers Act of 1977. manuel balce ceneta / The Associated Press files U.S. President Donald Trump The act is usually referred to by the acronym IEEPA. It's a law that lets the U.S. president step in and control economic transactions to address a national emergency. That move overrides the U.S. Congress, which has the exclusive power to 'lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises' and to 'regulate commerce with foreign nations' under the U.S. constitution. The judges were scathing in their decision, writing that, 'any interpretation of IEEPA that delegates unlimited tariff authority is unconstitutional.' 'The president's assertion of tariff-making authority in the instant case, unbounded as it is by any limitation in duration or scope, exceeds any tariff authority delegated to the president under IEEPA. The worldwide and retaliatory tariffs are thus ultra vires and contrary to law,' the decision said. It continued, 'the challenged tariff orders will be vacated and their operation permanently enjoined,' halting the imposition of the duties countrywide, and ordering both 'Liberation Day' global tariffs and the fentanyl-related duties against Canada and Mexico must be removed within 10 days. Some other tariffs, such as steel and aluminum tariffs levied against Canada and others, remain in place because they weren't put in place using IEEPA. The Trump administration immediately appealed the court's decision, and the court hearing the appeal has temporarily halted the removal of the tariffs. The case will probably eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court, where the judges will have a distinct problem: Republican-appointed Supreme Court judges have long maintained that a literal interpretation of the U.S. constitution is the proper way to address constitutional questions, and that is exactly what the Court of International Trade panel of judges has delivered. Will the judges on the Supreme Court follow the principles they claim are paramount, or will they put principles on the shelf to pander to politics? Time will tell. As soon as the decision came down, you could imagine administration spokespeople such as Trump deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller announcing that the decision was made by a Marxist, power-seeking, appointed judiciary — because that's been the pat response to a steady march of court decisions striking down arbitrary actions by the White House. Weekday Evenings Today's must-read stories and a roundup of the day's headlines, delivered every evening. In the hours afterwards, White House spokesman Kush Desai said 'it is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency … President Trump pledged to put America First, and the administration is committed to using every lever of executive power to address this crisis and restore American greatness.' (Miller did not disappoint, either, shortly afterwards announcing on social media that, 'The judicial coup is out of control.') The problem is there is no emergency and there never was. There was only ever an excuse. What remains to be seen is whether Trump and his crew of magical thinkers will even listen to the law — or just continue to claim that Trump has absolute powers that override even the constitution of the United States. Time will tell: if, in 10 days, the tariffs remain in place, it will be absolutely clear that Trump's administration believes itself to be above the law. And that would be one more step down the road to U.S. autocracy.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
JD Vance accuses courts of trying to ‘literally overturn' the will of American voters
The more Donald Trump and his administration push the legal envelope, the more they lose in court. In fact, Adam Bonica, a political science professor at Stanford, found that the president has faced a variety of legal fights this month, and he's lost 96% of the time. Even when Trump's cases have landed before Republican-appointed judges, he's still lost 72% of the time. For assorted partisans, there are competing ways to interpret the White House's many legal setbacks. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt, for example, recently pitched reporters on the idea that an elaborate conspiracy against Trump has made it nearly impossible for the president to succeed in a corrupted justice system. And while that was hysterical nonsense, Trump himself has gone further, accusing judges who dare to rule in ways he doesn't like of being anti-American 'monsters' and 'lunatics' who 'who want our country to go to hell.' JD Vance hasn't used comparable rhetoric, but when the vice president sat down last week with The New York Times' Ross Douthat, he did voice concern about 'a real conflict between two important principles in the United States.' From the transcript of the interview: Principle 1, of course, is that courts interpret the law. Principle 2 is that the American people decide how they're governed. That's the fundamental small-d democratic principle that's at the heart of the American project. I think that you are seeing, and I know this is inflammatory, but I think you are seeing an effort by the courts to quite literally overturn the will of the American people. This argument comes up from time to time, despite its ridiculousness. Indeed, about a month after Trump's second inaugural, Elon Musk appeared on Fox News and argued, 'If the will of the president is not implemented and the president is representative of the people, that means the will of the people is not being implemented, and that means we don't live in a democracy.' The argument reflects a certain child-like logic: Trump won a democratic election, so to deny the president's will is to defy democracy. Of course, if the U.S. were an autocracy; if the rule of law didn't exist; and if the powers of the presidency were indistinguishable from that of a king, then Musk's pitch might make sense. But since that isn't the case, Musk's argument is both absurd and at odds with how our Madisonian political system is designed to work. The trouble, of course, is that Vance's pitch was similar — and similarly wrong. To hear the vice president tell it, not quite 50% of voters backed Trump, which in turn means the president reflects the will of the American electorate, which ultimately means that courts should let Trump do as he pleases because the alternative is to 'quite literally overturn' the voters' will. Vance said this assessment would be seen as 'inflammatory,' but that's the wrong adjective. It's far more accurate to describe it as pseudo-constitutional gibberish. It falls on the judiciary to evaluate legal disputes on their merits. It is not the job of the courts to defer to another branch of government based on election results. In our system, there is no such rule that suggests, 'If people vote for a candidate, the candidate's platform instantly becomes legal.' New York magazine's Ed Kilgore summarized, 'Repeated again and again, the idea that judges should bend the law to suit Trump because he, unlike his predecessors, uniquely embodies the Popular Will (even though an actual majority of voters did not vote for him last year) is pernicious and, worse yet, validates the already-powerful authoritarian tendencies of the president, his advisers, and his fans in conservative media and on MAGA social media.' It's a point worth keeping in mind the next time one of Trump's allies peddles this absurdity. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Judge bars Trump order against law firm tied to Robert Mueller
By Mike Scarcella (Reuters) -A federal judge on Tuesday struck down an executive order targeting law firm WilmerHale, in the third ruling to overwhelmingly reject President Donald Trump's efforts to punish firms he perceives as enemies of his administration. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, in Washington, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, said Trump's order retaliated against the firm in violation of U.S. constitutional protections for free speech and due process. "I have concluded that this order must be struck down in its entirety as unconstitutional," Leon wrote in his 73-page opinion. "Indeed, to rule otherwise would be unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the Founding Fathers!" Leon said Trump had penalized WilmerHale for hiring Robert Mueller, the Republican-appointed special counsel who led a probe into Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election and Trump campaign ties to Moscow. Trump has derided the investigation as a political "witch hunt." In a statement, WilmerHale said Leon's ruling "strongly affirms our foundational constitutional rights and those of our clients. We remain proud to defend our firm, our people, and our clients." White House spokesman Harrison Fields in a statement said Trump acted within his power by rescinding security clearances for the firm's attorneys. Reviewing the president's clearance decisions "falls well outside the judiciary's authority,' Fields said. WilmerHale was among four law firms that sued the administration over Trump's orders, which suspended their lawyers' security clearances and sought to bar them from federal buildings and strip their clients of U.S. federal government contracts. WilmerHale called Trump's order 'flagrantly' unconstitutional, arguing it violated its rights to speech, due process and equal protection under the law. The firm in its lawsuit was represented by prominent conservative lawyer Paul Clement, who was the U.S. solicitor general during the George W. Bush presidency. Leon barred federal agencies from enforcing the March 27 executive order against WilmerHale, a 1,200-lawyer firm with offices in Washington, D.C., and across the country. He called the order "a staggering punishment for the firm's protected speech" that harmed its ability to represent its clients. In a related lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell on May 2 overturned Trump's executive order against law firm Perkins Coie. On May 23, U.S. District Judge John Bates issued a similar ruling that struck down Trump's order against Jenner & Block. A fourth judge is weighing whether to overturn an executive order that targeted Susman Godfrey. The U.S. Justice Department has defended Trump's orders in court, arguing in each case that Trump was lawfully exercising his presidential power and discretion. Trump has accused the firms of "weaponizing" the justice system against him and his allies. The Justice Department can appeal Leon's order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Nine law firms, including Paul Weiss, Latham & Watkins; Skadden Arps; and Willkie Farr, reached deals with Trump that averted punitive actions, pledging a combined total of nearly $1 billion in free legal services to advance causes he supports. Trump's targeting of firms has drawn condemnation from many within the legal industry. Some have criticized the firms that reached agreements as capitulating to presidential coercion.
