Justice Amy Coney Barrett, appointed in 2020, stated the Supreme Court lacks the power to enforce its rulings if a president chooses to ignore them, lacking the “power of the purse” and “power of the sword.” She discussed her legal theory of originalism and the ongoing debate surrounding executive power, specifically referencing the “unitary executive theory.” Barrett acknowledged that the court often makes decisions along partisan lines, though she maintains she is “nobody’s justice.” During the interview, she was hesitant to discuss what the court’s role might be in the face of an executive challenging its authority.
Read More
Miller’s use of the first person in describing his actions within the administration raises concerns about his authority and influence, especially given his unelected position. Social media users have expressed alarm, pointing out that Miller appears to be making decisions regarding the deployment of federal agencies and National Guard units. Furthermore, the author criticizes Miller’s portrayal of potential scenarios involving military action in Southern towns, suggesting that such actions would likely be met with resistance.
Read More
During a CNN interview, White House aide Stephen Miller paused mid-sentence while discussing the President’s authority to deploy National Guard troops, leading to speculation of a technical glitch or a deliberate stop. Miller’s use of the term “plenary authority” sparked controversy, as it suggests the president has broad, potentially limitless power. Despite the on-air issue, the interview resumed with Miller re-asserting the President’s authority under Title 10 of the U.S. Code to deploy federal resources, though he emphasized the administration would abide by the judge’s ruling. This incident raised questions and drew criticism, particularly concerning the scope of executive power in domestic troop deployments.
Read More
A federal judge’s decision blocked President Trump’s plan to deploy the Oregon National Guard to Portland, sparking a high-profile legal battle over executive power. The ruling, from a Trump-appointed judge, addressed the legality of sending federalized troops into a U.S. city amid protests and the broader constitutional relationships between the White House, Congress, and the states. The state of Oregon and the city of Portland argued that the deployment was unconstitutional. The Justice Department has appealed the ruling, and further court proceedings are scheduled.
Read More
In a controversial decision, the Supreme Court allowed Donald Trump to cancel $4 billion in foreign aid appropriated by Congress. The ruling, seemingly based on a “pocket rescission” strategy, granted Trump the ability to withhold funds until they expired, effectively giving him a line-item veto. This decision, reached through the shadow docket, shifts power from the legislative to the executive branch. The Court’s justification focused on the president’s authority over foreign affairs outweighing Congress’ spending control, a move that could lead to a president impounding any funds they dislike, undermining the separation of powers.
Read More
President Trump has declared an “armed conflict” with drug cartels, viewing them as terrorists and paving the way for increased military action. A confidential memo sent to Congress revealed this decision, giving Trump more authority for lethal strikes. This declaration follows deadly strikes against alleged drug smuggling boats, sparking concerns about legality and a dramatic escalation of military power. The administration claims these actions are part of a campaign against “narco-terrorists” and to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the U.S.
Read More
A federal appeals court sided against Donald Trump’s tariff program, declaring the method of implementation unlawful. This ruling, upholding a prior decision, determined Trump violated the law by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act without congressional approval. New York Attorney General Letitia James celebrated the court’s decision as a win for American families and businesses, as the tariffs were viewed as massive taxes. Trump’s administration is expected to appeal the case, which is set to take effect in October.
Read More
President Donald Trump has increasingly justified his policies by invoking national security, leading to a push for broad executive powers, specifically when stripping protections from government worker unions. This strategy is meant to use emergency powers to consolidate unitary control, sidestepping judicial review by appealing to long-standing deference principles. However, courts have shown varying degrees of resistance to this, and, while some judges have deferred to the administration’s claims, others have pushed back. These legal battles are ongoing and are likely to reach the Supreme Court, which has a history of deferring to the executive branch on national security matters.
Read More
President Trump stated that he may not require congressional approval to extend the federal control of Washington, D.C., claiming the local crime situation could constitute a national emergency, despite his own police force reporting a decrease in violent crime. He announced his intent to seek extensions beyond the initial 30-day timeframe. Trump plans to present a crime bill, initially focused on D.C., and suggested that the Republicans in Congress will unanimously approve the extension. He also dismissed reports of crime statistics and claimed the crime situation is dire.
Read More
The Supreme Court’s ruling in *Trump v. Casa* establishes a significant limitation on the judiciary’s power to restrain the executive branch, specifically regarding universal injunctions. The majority opinion, led by Justice Barrett, argues that federal courts lack the authority to issue injunctions that apply beyond the immediate parties involved, creating a “gap” where the government can act unlawfully without judicial recourse. This decision, rooted in a narrow interpretation of the Judiciary Act of 1789, potentially invalidates numerous past injunctions and allows the government to sidestep constitutional challenges by focusing on procedural maneuvers rather than defending the legality of its actions. The author argues that this decision is a threat to the rule of law.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker