President Donald Trump is seeking unprecedented power over U.S. fiscal and monetary policy through several cases before the Supreme Court. One case concerns Trump’s tariffs, which he claims are valid without Congressional approval, potentially raising trillions in new taxes. Another case involves Trump’s ability to impound funds, essentially refusing to spend money appropriated by Congress. Finally, Trump is attempting to gain the power to fire a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors. If Trump is successful in these cases, he could gain dictatorial control over the U.S. economy.
Read More
Trump administration unlawfully directed mass worker terminations, judge rules. It’s pretty astounding, isn’t it? A federal judge has come out and plainly stated that the Trump administration, during its time in office, acted unlawfully by ordering the mass firing of thousands of federal workers. And the kicker? Despite this clear violation of the law, the judge didn’t actually order the workers to be reinstated. The whole thing just highlights the complex and frustrating dance that can sometimes play out in the legal system, especially when dealing with politically charged issues.
The judge, U.S. District Judge William Alsup, based his decision on a previous ruling, confirming his preliminary stance that the U.S.… Continue reading
A majority of Brazil’s Supreme Court judges have voted to convict former President Jair Bolsonaro of plotting a military coup, potentially resulting in a lengthy prison sentence. Justice Cármen Lúcia Antunes Rocha ruled Bolsonaro guilty of attempting to cling to power after losing the 2022 election. Two other judges, Alexandre de Moraes and Flávio Dino, also found him guilty of leading a criminal organization that sought to overthrow Brazilian democracy. The former president’s sentence is expected to be determined after the remaining judge casts his vote, with a possible sentence up to 43 years.
Read More
In a recent Supreme Court ruling, Justice Kavanaugh suggested that Americans roughed up by ICE agents can sue in federal court. However, civil rights attorneys are pushing back, noting the court’s conservative majority has made such cases difficult to win. The court has limited the ability to sue federal law enforcement for excessive force claims in prior decisions, including border incidents. Justice Sotomayor dissented, arguing the ruling allows targeting of Latinos.
Read More
The Supreme Court has agreed to expedite a case concerning President Trump’s authority to impose broad tariffs, with arguments scheduled for November. The case challenges the legality of these tariffs, which were implemented using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). A federal appeals court previously found the tariffs were illegally implemented, potentially leading to refunds. The outcome of the Supreme Court’s decision could have significant implications, potentially setting clearer boundaries on presidential trade actions and impacting the government’s ability to collect duties.
Read More
The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, has allowed the Trump administration to use racial profiling in its immigration raids, overturning an injunction against targeting Latinos. Justice Sotomayor dissented, warning of the unconstitutional implications and potential for violence against Latinos, including U.S. citizens. This decision, made without explanation, impacts the “Operation at Large” in Los Angeles, which targeted individuals based on their ethnicity, language, and work, thereby violating Fourth Amendment protections. The court’s silence and Kavanaugh’s misrepresentation of the situation highlights the far-reaching consequences for those affected by these raids.
Read More
The Supreme Court has temporarily allowed President Trump to fire a Federal Trade Commission member, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, despite a law meant to restrict the White House’s control over the agency. The court blocked a lower court’s ruling that reinstated Slaughter while the case continues, signaling the likelihood of granting the president broader firing authority. This action directly challenges a 1935 Supreme Court precedent limiting the president’s ability to remove FTC commissioners without cause, a restriction meant to protect the agency from political pressure. The Trump administration argues such restrictions unlawfully limit presidential power as defined by the Constitution.
Read More
The Trump administration received notification that Israel attacked Hamas in Doha, Qatar, a close U.S. ally. According to Leavitt, the bombing of a sovereign nation does not serve the goals of either country, although eliminating Hamas, which has exploited Gazans, is a worthy objective. The president views Qatar as a strong ally and wants the war to end, along with the release of hostages and the deceased. Qatar has already suspended mediation efforts, and the attack threatens to prolong the conflict and the detention of Israeli hostages.
Read More
In a strongly worded dissent to the Supreme Court’s decision, Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the authorization of racial profiling by immigration agents, deeming it unconstitutional. She highlighted documented instances of physical force used by ICE agents in Los Angeles, who targeted individuals based on their appearance, language, and perceived profession. Sotomayor condemned the ruling, arguing it would subject countless individuals to unjust treatment, and directly challenged Justice Kavanaugh’s characterization of the ICE raids. Furthermore, Sotomayor asserted that the decision wrongly placed the burden on citizens to prove their legal status, effectively creating a second-class citizenship, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Read More
The Supreme Court ruled that federal immigration agents do not need reasonable suspicion to target individuals for immigration detention, opening the door to racial profiling. This decision overturned a lower court order that restricted ICE agents in Los Angeles from making arrests based on racially loaded categories. Justice Kavanaugh wrote the opinion, stating that factors like ethnicity, language, and occupation, combined with the high number of illegal immigrants in the area, could contribute to “reasonable suspicion.” Justice Sotomayor dissented, arguing that the ruling allows the government to target Latinos and those in low-wage jobs, disregarding Fourth Amendment protections.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood