Latest news with #RobertsCourt
Yahoo
05-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
5 Points On Boasberg's Big Alien Enemies Act Ruling
After being mostly scuttled by the Supreme Court, the original Alien Enemies Act case has re-entered the conversation. While the high court took most of the Alien Enemies Act challenges out of the hands of U.S. District Judge James Boasberg of D.C. and distributed them to the individual judicial districts where Venezuelan nationals are being detained under the act, it left unresolved the fate of the deportees already removed to CECOT in El Salvador. In a significant ruling yesterday, Boasberg concluded that the CECOT detainees were denied due process when they were removed March 15. He ordered the Trump administration to propose a plan within a week for how to 'facilitate' giving the detainees the due process they were denied. While President Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act was itself historic and the cases challenging his proclamation are testing the robustness of due process, the real import of these cases is that they are where the executive branch is threatening to and in fact is running roughshod over the judicial branch. In defying court orders, including to 'facilitate' the return of other wrongfully deported foreign nationals, the Trump administration has provoked a constitutional clash, practically daring the judicial branch to try to stop it. Boasberg's decision sets up another potential focal point for that constitutional clash. Here are 5 points on how Boasberg's ruling anticipates that confrontation: Boasberg's ruling wasn't a complete victory for the CECOT detainees. He found it unlikely that they would win their habeas corpus claims. For the detainees to prevail on the habeas claim, they had to show that they were in the 'constructive custody' of the United States, meaning under U.S. control or held at its behest. It's troubling that Boasberg was unconvinced on this point and even he seemed troubled by it, but by taking it off the table, he eliminates one ripe avenue of appeal for the government. By grounding his ruling in the due process clause of the 5th Amendment instead, he aligned with the Supreme Court's recent strong defense of due process in this very case. And in the end, he winds up at roughly the same place because he concluded that the remedy for violating the detainees due process was to allow them the chance to pursue the habeas claims they were denied in the first place. Boasberg seems keenly aware that this Supreme Court is going to give maximum deference to the executive branch. I suspect that's one reason he effectively sidestepped the 'constructive custody' issue. The Roberts Court isn't going to get involved in foreign policy by ordering the administration to make demands on El Salvador, and so Boasberg is walking a fine line. 'Although the Court is mindful that such a remedy may implicate sensitive diplomatic or national-security concerns within the exclusive province of the Executive Branch, it also has a constitutional duty to provide a remedy that will 'make good the wrong done,'' Boasberg wrote. In open court previously, Boasberg had mused about how due process could be provided without having to return the detainees to the United States. In his written opinion, Boasberg said that facilitating a return of the CECOT detainees is 'not necessarily' the only presumed remedy for the due process violation. Boasberg was vague about what kind of process he was looking for to provide the detainees with their denied due process. 'Exactly what such facilitation must entail will be determined in future proceedings,' he wrote. His invitation to the government to propose a process invites some sort of remote habeas proceeding. But in the short term it may not matter because the Trump administration will almost certainly appeal Boasberg's preliminary injunction to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and ask it to pause the case so that it doesn't have to propose a plan for giving the detainees belated due process, before the deadline Boasberg set for next week. From there, the case is a sure bet to go to the Supreme Court. In the meantime, the CECOT detainees, who are approaching the three-month mark of their confinement there, will remain in indefinite custody. Plaintiffs typically must post an Injunction bond, which is intended to make defendants whole if it turns out the injunction was improperly granted. It's common for judges to waive an injunction bond when the injunction is against the federal government. I was left wondering whether Boasberg set a nominal bond of $1 here to sidestep the yet-to-pass House GOP's reconciliation bill which contains a provision that would prohibit federal judges from enforcing contempt citations unless a bond was posted when an injunction was issued. No way to confirm Boasberg's intentions, but it caught my eye. In his opinion, Boasberg highlights more than once the Trump administration's poor conduct in this case from the beginning. You'll recall he already found probable cause that the administration violated his order when it proceeded with the deportations on March 15 and didn't turn the planes around. He references his contempt of court inquiry in the opinion. All of which serves as good reminder that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals placed an administrative stay on the contempt of court inquiry more than six weeks ago. It's been fully briefed since April 28. And still no ruling from the appeals court. Meanwhile, several other courts have begun incipient contempt of court proceedings against the administration in other Alien Enemies Act cases and adjacent 'facilitate' cases. It's not at all clear what is taking the D.C. Circuit so long.
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The Supreme Court Just Handed A Match To An Arsonist
A lot of things happened. Here are some of the things. This is TPM's Morning Memo. Sign up for the email version. In a tumultuous week that marked four months since Donald Trump's second inauguration, nothing will have as long-lasting and damaging an effect on American democracy as the Supreme Court's decision yesterday to upend 90 years of its own precedent and strip independent agencies of their independence. The high court's six-justice conservative majority fundamentally altered the structural balance of power among the branches of the federal government. It handed vast new power to the White House to put politics above expertise, partisanship above reason, and power over principle. All of that would have been bad enough at any other time, but the Roberts Court just handed a match to a confirmed arsonist in Donald Trump. As bad as the first four months of his second term have been, it was not enough to dislodge the conservative justices from their ideological attachment to the radical theory of a unitary executive. The immediate result of their decision will be to enable and encourage Trump's rampage across federal government to bring it to heel to his whims in dramatic and disturbing ways. But it also tilts the playing field of American politics in profound but often imperceptible ways that will persist for decades. One wonders how independent agencies will even function. They were created and have existed over the course of nearly a century under a certain set of assumptions about the importance of experts, consistency in policy-making, and insulation from partisan politics. What is their use or reason for being now if they're merely appendages of the White House doing its bidding? Political scientist Don Moynihan makes an insightful point about the impact of the Supreme Court's decision: With unitary executive theory, Congress cannot write robust new legislation that modernizes the civil service and stops politicization. A President could just ignore it. Even if Trump leaves office, and a new President looks to restore nonpartisan competence, their promises are only good for four or eight years before another President can come in and rip up the terms of their employment. And over time, why would even a good government President invest effort in restoring capacity if their successor can undermine it? With unitary executive theory, the public sector becomes permanently viewed as an unstable and chaotic workplace that we are seeing now. The most capable potential employees decide its not worth the bother, and the workforce becomes a mix of people who cannot get a job elsewhere, and short term political appointees. Last month, Todd Phillips warned of the intellectual dishonesty afoot if the Supreme Court did what it ultimately did do yesterday in overturning its Humphrey's Executor precedent while carving out a special exception for the Federal Reserve: 'In short, there is simply no principled way of ensuring the Fed's removal protections stand while striking down those of all other agencies.' Department of Education: In a new ruling, U.S. District Judge Myong Joun of Massachusetts blocked massive layoffs at the department, concluding that they were a poorly camouflaged attempt by the Trump administration to unlawfully dismantle it. Voice of America: The Trump administration's silencing of the government broadcaster can continue after the full D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed a stay pending appeal to remain in place. Gov't-wide: Judge Susan Illston of San Francisco extended her order blocking mass layoffs across 22 government agencies and reining in Trump administration efforts to dismantle some offices. Harvard: Harvard quickly filed a new lawsuit against the Trump administration Friday morning challenging the Department of Homeland Security's revocation yesterday of the school's certification for admitting foreign students. 'This means Harvard can no longer enroll foreign students and existing foreign students must transfer or lose their legal status,' DHS announced (the emphasis is in the original). Nationwide: U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White of Oakland issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration from revoking the legal status of foreign students en masse. Columbia: A trumped-up investigation by the Department of Health and Human Services accuses the school of violating civil rights law by 'acting with deliberate indifference' toward harassment against Jewish students. As the Trump administration weaponizes the government's investigative powers to target perceived political foes and people it doesn't like or agree with, editors and reporters can't continue to frame coverage of those investigations in the same way they always have. A couple of sample headlines from today: NYT: Regulators Are Investigating Whether Media Matters Colluded With Advertisers WSJ: Columbia Violated Students' Civil Rights, Government Investigation Finds Those framings only lend legitimacy to what is a dramatic departure from the legal and ethical strictures that bound government investigations in the past. Even in better times, journalists were often too deferential in their framing of investigations in ways that mirrored what prosecutors and law enforcement alleged. In the Trump era, the fact of the investigation is often more important than what it purports to investigate or uncover. The old ways of covering government investigation simply can't persist in these new conditions. Epidemiologist Katelyn Jetelina on the Trump FDA's decision to erect new hurdles for COVID vaccines for healthy people under the age of 65: On the surface, this sounds reasonable. After all, severe Covid-19 is far less common in healthy young people. Given growing immunity, real scientific questions exist about whether annual boosters are still warranted for everyone. And, yes, other countries do things differently. But beneath the surface, this move is deeply troubling. It bypasses the scientific systems built to answer these questions, replacing the public process in health policy with the opinions of two political appointees with chips on their shoulders. President Trump confirmed in a social media post that the deportation flight to South Sudan, which has been the focal point of an intense legal battle in federal court in Massachusetts this week, is parked in Djibouti. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an administrative stay in the Alien Enemies Act case out of Houston, where U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison had issued a strongly worded order for the Trump administration to produce before midnight tonight detailed information about a Venezuelan man deported to El Salvador and not heard from since. A good analysis from Politico of how the Trump White House views losing in court on its lawless anti-immigration actions as still a win politically. Reuters: 'A hacker who breached the communications service used by former Trump national security adviser Mike Waltz earlier this month intercepted messages from a broader swathe of American officials than has previously been reported, according to a Reuters review, potentially raising the stakes of a breach that has already drawn questions about data security in the Trump administration.'
Yahoo
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The Supreme Court's latest case on religion in school could have far-reaching consequences
Can parents keep their kids from learning about evolution in public schools? What about books featuring wizards? What about pacifism? Feminism? Earth Day? There's seemingly no end to religious objections that one could make to various topics. That's relevant because the Supreme Court is hearing arguments Tuesday from Maryland parents who want to keep their elementary school kids from instruction involving gender and sexuality that they say bucks their beliefs. Technically, the plaintiffs of various faiths aren't trying to control what gets taught or to ban books. Rather, they're asking for notice and a chance to opt their kids out of certain instruction, in this case sparked by books featuring LGBTQ characters. So, what's the problem with that? After all, the Montgomery County school system previously allowed such 'opt-outs.' Lawyers for the school system told the justices that growing opt-out requests prompted three related concerns: 'high student absenteeism, the infeasibility of administering opt-outs across classrooms and schools, and the risk of exposing students who believe the storybooks represent them and their families to social stigma and isolation.' They said the implications of the parents' position are drastic, accusing them of trying to 'unsettle a decades-old consensus that parents who choose to send their children to public school are not deprived of their right to freely exercise their religion simply because their children are exposed to curricular materials the parents find offensive.' Outside briefs from school groups highlight the potential impact beyond the particular facts of this case. One of them tells the justices that the idea behind keeping kindergartners from the books at issue here 'will also apply to the parents of a high-school or middle-school student who wish to prevent their ninth grader from being exposed to evolution or their sixth-grader being exposed to any pictures of girls who are not wearing a hijab.' Likewise, another brief lists an array of objections lodged around the country to various topics, such as interracial marriage, feminism, yoga, Earth Day, community service, magic, witches, wizards, evolution, vaccinations and more. Still, the parents say they face an 'impossible choice': subject their children to instruction against their beliefs or lose out on public education. They're represented by a religious liberty group and backed by the Trump administration. Representing the school system is WilmerHale, one of the law firms targeted by the administration's revenge orders. The firm has fought back on First Amendment grounds, thus far successfully. The parents in Tuesday's case, called Mahmoud v. Taylor, cite the amendment's religious freedom guarantee. That atmospheric element aside, religious claims have broadly fared well at the Roberts Court. And this latest case has the makings of one that could garner at least a majority of the justices' sympathies. Ultimately, it could wind up being not so much whether the religious side wins but where the court draws the line. That line-drawing consideration is an important one in many appeals but especially so here. Tuesday's hearing could shed light on what the court will do as the term nears its unofficial end, when the court usually publishes its final rulings by July. Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
07-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Rule Of Law Or Rule By Law? SCOTUS Gets Its Chance To Halt Trump's Rampage—Or Greenlight It
This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM's home for opinion and news analysis. Four critical cases have reached the Supreme Court via its shadow docket in recent weeks. They touch on everything from birthright citizenship and unconstitutional deportations to funding cuts to programs the administration has labeled as 'DEI' and the firing of federal employees without cause. In each of these cases, the lower courts issued temporary restraining orders (TROs), meaning the government cannot enact its policies until the litigation is resolved; the status quo must remain in place while the courts consider their underlying legal and constitutional arguments. Though the merits of these cases are not yet at issue, in each, if the Roberts Court does not uphold the status quo — maintain birthright citizenship, require due process for deportation proceedings, and prevent unlawful, arbitrary terminations and funding cuts — it could create chaos for the lower courts and for countless Americans fighting to protect their own safety and well-being. In a dark portent of things to come, on April 4 the Court ruled on the first of these, overturning the TRO requiring the government to continue fulfilling DEI-related grants during the active litigation. It was a 5-4 decision, with Roberts joining the liberals. Trump and Musk are already moving faster than the courts can respond to demolish the parts of American society they deem anathema to their agenda. They're declaring immigrants — even those here legally — persona non grata, abducting them on the streets and even transferring them out of the country before their lawyers or the courts can act. A federal judge in Washington declared an effort to prevent the transfer of the U.S. Institute of Peace to the General Services Administration moot because it occurred before the plaintiffs could file a motion to prevent it. If the Roberts Court reverses these TROs and directives, it will give the administration far more room to inflict its desired damage on civil society and government. The outcome of these cases will reveal whether we live in a nation where the Court abides by the rule of law, or whether they will defer to Trump's unconstitutional efforts to rule by law. That is, the Roberts Court could allow Trump to weaponize the law in service of his power grabs, or the Court could uphold the Constitution and rule of law. The first of these four cases deals with birthright citizenship. The government claims it is merely asking the Court to limit multiple nationwide injunctions blocking the Trump administration's executive order that attempts to end birthright citizenship. However, the absence of a nationwide injunction halting this blatantly unconstitutional order form being enforced would mean every noncitizen family welcoming a newborn would have to challenge it themselves and potentially face detention or deportation. What's worse, right-wing groups filing amicus briefs are already asking the Court to ignore the plain text of the 14th Amendment, declare that it has been misinterpreted for 150 years, and rule that birthright citizenship is not enshrined in the Constitution. The second case is being brought by unions attempting to reinstate illegally fired government employees. Here, the Trump administration claims federal employee unions aren't permitted to sue on their members' behalf, and that courts lack jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The government asserts that individual employees must challenge their illegal filings with the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) — at the very same time Trump is attempting to dismantle and weaponize this board against workers. This would leave illegally fired employees in a permanent legal limbo. It would also set a precedent for Trump, Musk and their Project 2025 enablers to speed-run the destruction of federal agencies before the courts could even begin to stop the illegal bleeding, causing irreparable damage to programs Americans rely on — like Social Security, food safety inspectors, park rangers, weather scientists, and consumer watchdogs. The third case — the one the court issued an order in on Friday — deals with the funding of our public education system. The Court's right-wing justices, in undoing a TRO, could choose to make it infinitely harder for grant recipients — in this case, teacher training and retention funds — to obtain the money they rely upon, promised by the United States government. This may wellcould create a ripple effect, foisting budget shortfalls on state education systems. It could also set a precedent to make it more difficult for family farmers and small businesses across the country who rely on grants to get the money promised for work they have already done. The last case relates to the anachronistic Alien Enemies Act designed for times of war. Here, the Roberts Court could remove constraints on the Department of Homeland Security's obligation to follow the law. This would allow the agency to unconstitutionally detain and remove people merely accused of being war-time invaders (in this case gang members, not military personnel) — without any of the constitutional protections promised by the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments. If that happens, it won't be long before an innocent American citizen is mistakenly accused and swiftly deported to a notorious El Salvador prison. The administration has ample authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act to remove people it deems dangerous. But doing so requires judicial findings and due process — constitutional protections that are proving inconvenient for Trump. We will soon see whether the Roberts Court intends to follow the Constitution or effectively place the powers Trump is asserting above the rule of law. Although the cases' merits are not yet at issue, overturning the TROs in any of these instances would create extra runway for Trump and Musk to weaponize the law against their opponents in the interim. If these rulings fall the wrong way, it will be a dangerous harbinger of what's to come.
Yahoo
05-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
At congressional address, Trump told Chief Justice Roberts he ‘won't forget'
What was Donald Trump thinking about when he thanked Chief Justice John Roberts and said he wouldn't 'forget'? If the answer lies in any Trump-friendly court rulings, then the president might've been thinking about multiple things. Trump made the remark Tuesday night, as he shook hands with the Supreme Court justices attending his congressional address. Starting at about 2:20:05 on C-SPAN's recording, the president shook hands with retired Justice Anthony Kennedy (who stepped down during Trump's first term, making way for Justice Brett Kavanaugh's appointment); then Trump's third appointee, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, whom Republicans pushed through at the end of his first term after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died; then Kavanaugh; then Justice Elena Kagan; and finally Roberts, whom Trump thanked 'again,' said he wouldn't forget, and then patted him on the back/shoulder area. An obvious first guess at what Trump could've been talking about (if anything specific) is the immunity decision that Roberts authored last year. The high court's handling of that appeal helped Trump avoid a trial in the federal election interference case and could even help him overturn his state conviction in New York in his only criminal case that went to trial before he won the 2024 election. On the subject of that political victory, another crucial Roberts Court decision last year was in Trump v. Anderson, the case that kept Trump on the ballot despite the 14th Amendment's insurrectionist ban. And on the subject of Jan. 6, there's the Roberts-authored ruling in Fischer v. United States, which narrowed obstruction charges against Jan. 6 defendants in a case that could've also benefited Trump's legal challenge to his federal election interference charges. We'll never know the full extent to which the Fischer ruling would've helped Trump; due to the Justice Department's policy against charging sitting presidents, his victory in November led the prosecution to drop the case entirely. To be sure, Roberts hasn't always sided with Trump. Indeed, on Wednesday morning, the chief justice and Barrett were in the majority of a 5-4 decision rejecting the administration's bid to avoid paying out certain congressionally appropriated funds. As Trump's litigation-packed second term gets underway, the president will likely win some court cases and lose others. But he has the Roberts Court to thank for being in a position to play the game at all. Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in Donald Trump's legal cases. This article was originally published on
