Latest news with #executiveactions
The Independent
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Independent
Trump orders investigation into Biden presidency claiming aides hid his ‘serious cognitive decline'
President Donald Trump has ordered an investigation into former President Joe Biden's actions as president via a memorandum asking "who ran the United States while President Biden was in office." The memo alleges that Biden and his aides hid his 'serious cognitive decline' during the latter part of his presidency. The Trump administration announced the investigation on Wednesday evening. The investigation will seek to determine if "certain individuals conspired to deceive the public about Biden's mental state and unconstitutionally exercise the authorities and responsibilities of the President." It also mandates an investigation into all of Biden's executive actions during his "final years in office, examining policy documents signed with an autopen, who authorized its use, and the validity of the resulting Presidential policy decisions."
New York Times
22-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Republican Bill Would Limit Judges' Contempt Power
The sprawling domestic policy bill Republicans pushed through the House on Thursday would limit the power of federal judges to hold people in contempt, potentially shielding President Trump and members of his administration from the consequences of violating court orders. Republicans tucked the provision into the tax and spending cut bill at a time when they have moved aggressively to curb the power of federal courts to issue injunctions blocking Mr. Trump's executive actions. It comes as federal judges have opened inquiries about whether to hold the Trump administration in contempt for violating their orders in cases related to its aggressive deportation efforts. It is not clear whether the provision can survive under special procedures Republicans are using to push the legislation through Congress on a simple majority vote. Such bills must comply with strict rules that require that all of their components have a direct effect on federal revenues. But by including it, Republicans were seeking to use their major policy bill to weaken federal judges. Under the rules that govern civil lawsuits in the federal courts, federal judges are supposed to order a bond from a person seeking a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction. The amount is supposed to be set at what 'the court considers proper' to cover any costs that might be suffered if that injunction is later found to have been incorrectly issued. But federal judges have wide discretion to set their bonds, and often refrain from doing so. Samuel L. Bray, a Notre Dame law professor, said many judges do not order injunction bonds in cases where people are seeking to stop government actions that they claim are unconstitutional. 'It doesn't wind up getting used as much as it's supposed to,' he said, 'and it especially doesn't wind up getting used when people sue the federal government.' The language in the House-passed bill would block federal judges from enforcing their contempt citations if they had not previously ordered a bond, a provision that Republicans said was intended to discourage frivolous lawsuits by requiring a financial stake from those suing. Representative Jim Jordan, the Ohio Republican who chairs the Judiciary Committee, said the provision was also meant to target cases involving nationwide injunctions. 'The judge can set the security at whatever level he wants,' Mr. Jordan said at a hearing on Wednesday. 'What's typically happened in these cases is he's just waving it. Nobody's putting it up. And they're getting this injunction that applies nationwide, which is the concern.' The provision would apply retroactively to court orders that were made before it was enacted, including ongoing cases where federal judges are weighing whether to hold Trump administration officials in contempt over deporting immigrants. Judge James A. Boasberg, a veteran judge in Washington, has threatened to open contempt proceedings over whether the administration violated an order he issued stopping flights deporting Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador. In Maryland, Judge Paula Xinis said she would consider contempt charges as she investigated whether the White House violated the Supreme Court's ruling to 'facilitate' the release of a wrongly deported Maryland man, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, from a Salvadoran prison. And on Wednesday, a federal judge in Boston raised the possibility of contempt charges against Trump administration officials after he found that they had violated an order that blocked the government from deporting people to countries that were not their own without giving them sufficient time to object. Democrats have argued that House Republicans' measure would rob courts of their power by stripping away any consequences for officials who ignore judges' rulings. They also noted that the measure would effectively shield the Trump administration from constitutional challenges by making it prohibitively expensive to sue. 'We've never said to American citizens and constituents that in order to vindicate their rights in federal court, they're going to be required to provide a security when their constitutional rights have been violated by their government,' Representative Joe Neguse, Democrat of Colorado, said.
Fox News
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Trump appointee Barrett challenges administration on nationwide injunctions, surprises and delights liberals
Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett sparred with U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer Thursday, pressing him on whether the Trump administration would follow federal court precedent. The exchange quickly became one of the day's most talked-about moments and could reignite criticism of Barrett from Trump allies. The back-and-forth took place Thursday during oral arguments in a case related to President Donald Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship with a specific focus on whether lower courts should be able to block executive actions from taking effect nationwide. Justice Barrett, a Trump appointee, grilled Sauer about the administration's stance toward lower court rulings, which followed similar lines of inquiry from her colleagues on the bench. "I want to ask you about a potential tension," she began, before stopping to correct herself. "Well, no, not a potential tension, an actual tension that I see in answers that you gave to Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Kagan." Barrett then asked Sauer if the Trump administration "wanted to reserve its right to maybe not follow a Second Circuit precedent, say, in New York, because you might disagree with its opinion?" "You resisted Justice Kagan when she asked you whether the government would obey" such a precedent, she said. Sauer responded, "Our general practice is to respect those precedents. But there are circumstances when it is not a categorical practice, and that is not …" Barrett interrupted, asking if that is the Trump administration's practice or "the long-standing practice of the federal government?" Sauer replied that it is "the long-standing policy of the Department of Justice." "Really?" she asked. "Yes, as it was phrased to me, we generally respect circuit precedent, but not necessarily in every case," Sauer said. "Some examples might be a situation where we are litigating to get that circuit precedent overruled and so on," he added later. "That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about this week," Barrett stressed, pointing to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling that Trump's birthright citizenship order is unconstitutional. "And what do you do the next day, or the next week?" she asked. "Generally, we follow this," Sauer said, which provoked a somewhat incredulous response from the justice. "So, you're still saying generally?" she asked him. "And you still think that it's generally the long-standing policy of the federal government to take that approach?" The remarks sparked divided political reactions on social media, with Democratic strategist Max Burns noting, "Trump Solicitor General D. John Sauer tells Justice Amy Coney Barrett that Trump 'generally' tries to respect federal court decisions but he has the 'right' to disregard legal opinions he personally disagrees with. Coney Barrett seems to be in disbelief." "John Sauer just said the quiet part out loud: unless the Supreme Court tells them directly, Trump's team might ignore lower court rulings," said Seth Taylor, a 2024 DNC delegate. "That's not governance – that's constitutional brinksmanship." "Amy Coney Barrett (ACB) is proving once again she may the the worst SCOTUS pick ever by a Republican," conservative commentator and podcast host Cash Loren said on social media. "She has a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. … Yet you can hear her disdain for the Trump administration." Earlier this year, Barrett sided with three of the Supreme Court's liberal justices and Chief Justice John Roberts in rejecting, 5-4, the Trump administration's request to block billions in USAID money for previously completed projects. The decision sparked fierce criticism from Trump supporters, who have attempted to label Justice Barrett an "activist" justice and someone who has been insufficiently loyal to the president who tapped her for the high court. Others have pointed out her track record as a reliably conservative voter and the fact the court has lifetime appointments to allow justices to ostensibly act without undue political interference. Trump later said he had no knowledge of the attacks against her, telling reporters, "She's a very good woman." "She's very smart, and I don't know about people attacking her. I really don't know." Trump added. The court ruling could come in a matter of days or weeks. But it will likely hinge closely on the votes of two Trump appointees, Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Barrett, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley told Fox News Friday. Overall, he said of the hearing, "it got pretty sporty in there." "There were some lively moments, at least lively for the Supreme Court," he said, before noting the justices to watch are Gorsuch and Barrett. "Justice Barrett is probably the greatest concern right now for the Trump administration," Turley said.
Yahoo
10-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Federal judge temporarily halts Trump admin's mass layoff plans
A federal judge issued a ruling Friday ordering a temporary pause in the Trump administration's plan to slash various agencies and fire tens of thousands of federal workers. U.S. District Judge Susan Illston of California issued a two-week pause, arguing that while the president can institute changes to federal agencies and conduct mass layoffs, he has to perform them in 'lawful ways.' 'The President has the authority to seek changes to executive branch agencies, but he must do so in lawful ways and, in the case of large-scale reorganizations, with the cooperation of the legislative branch. Many presidents have sought this cooperation before; many iterations of Congress have provided it,' Illston said in a 42-page order. 'Nothing prevents the President from requesting this cooperation—as he did in his prior term of office. Indeed, the Court holds the President likely must request Congressional cooperation to order the changes he seeks, and thus issues a temporary restraining order to pause large-scale reductions in force in the meantime,' the federal judge said Friday. The judge's restraining order will last until May 23, during which period new reduction-in-force notifications from the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management will not go into effect. The ruling comes in response to a lawsuit filed last month by various labor unions, cities, nonprofits and counties, marking one of the biggest challenges to Trump's executive actions yet. The plaintiffs contended that the president does not have the authority to retool the federal government without the green light of Congress. A number of agencies are covered under the Friday order, including the Department of Labor, Energy, Commerce, Veterans Affairs, Health and Human Services, and others. Tens of thousands of federal workers have been fired, and several federal agencies have seen dramatic reductions or been shuttered in recent months. Trump, with the help of Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency, has worked to shrink the federal government in his second term, sparking legal action. In response to recent lawsuits, several judges have ordered pauses in the Trump administration's sweeping efforts. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
