Following a federal judge’s blocking of an administration effort to bar Harvard from enrolling international students, Donald Trump demanded the names and countries of origin of all international students enrolled at the university. This request, made via Truth Social, follows a Homeland Security letter threatening to terminate Harvard’s participation in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program. Harvard subsequently sued the administration, citing First and Fourteenth Amendment violations, a suit which a judge temporarily ruled in favor of the university. Trump’s actions are part of a broader pattern of targeting elite universities, particularly regarding their endowments and diversity initiatives.
Read More
A federal judge rebuked the Trump administration for defying a court order by deporting migrants to South Sudan, a country deemed too dangerous for American travelers, without proper notice. The administration’s actions, including providing less than 24 hours’ notice, directly violated a prior injunction. House Republicans subsequently passed a bill to limit judges’ ability to enforce contempt orders, seemingly aimed at shielding administration officials from accountability. This move threatens to render numerous existing injunctions, including those concerning civil rights, unenforceable. The bill’s future remains uncertain, pending a potential challenge based on Senate procedural rules.
Read More
On Friday, the Trump administration faced three consecutive legal setbacks. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., rejected the administration’s appeal to overturn a previous ruling restoring control of the U.S. Institute of Peace to its original board, and another judge declared an executive order targeting Jenner & Block law firm unconstitutional. Simultaneously, a Massachusetts judge ruled that the removal of articles from a federal patient-safety resource, due to an executive order on “gender ideology,” violated the First Amendment. These rulings highlight the judiciary’s role in obstructing the Trump administration’s agenda.
Read More
A federal judge’s recent decision to block the Trump administration’s attempt to revoke the enrollment of foreign students at Harvard University highlights a significant clash between executive power and judicial oversight. The administration, seemingly anticipating this legal challenge, likely hoped to create a chilling effect, deterring international students from applying to American universities. This strategy, while potentially successful in reducing international enrollment numbers, directly contradicts the core principles of the American legal system.
The administration’s argument, suggesting that unelected judges lack the authority to impede their immigration and national security policies, fundamentally misrepresents the balance of power enshrined in the U.S.… Continue reading
Justice Barrett’s initial recusal from a case involving public funding for religious schools resulted in a 4-4 split, upholding a lower court decision. However, she subsequently joined a majority opinion in *Trump v. Wilcox et al.*, allowing the president to fire heads of executive agencies despite congressional mandates to the contrary. This decision, criticized by Justice Kagan’s dissent, potentially overturns a century-old precedent and weakens the independence of executive agencies, granting the president significantly more power. The ruling’s disregard for established legal procedure and precedent raises concerns about the concentration of presidential power, echoing historical anxieties about executive overreach.
Read More
A US judge has recently ruled that the Trump administration cannot unilaterally restructure and downsize federal agencies without the express consent of Congress. This decision, handed down in a San Francisco court, stems from lawsuits filed by unions, nonprofits, and municipalities who argued that the administration’s mass layoffs were unlawful and would severely harm the public.
The judge agreed, stating that agencies cannot disregard congressional mandates, regardless of presidential orders. This highlights a crucial aspect of the US system of checks and balances: the executive branch, while possessing significant power, is not above the law and cannot arbitrarily circumvent the legislative branch’s authority over government spending and structure.… Continue reading
Senator Rubio erroneously asserted a dichotomy between the federal and judicial branches, claiming immunity from judicial oversight regarding foreign policy conduct and communication. This statement reveals a disregard for the tripartite system of government, specifically the principle of separation of powers and checks and balances. His position reflects a belief in executive dominance, mirroring the Trump administration’s apparent view of unchecked presidential authority. This disregard for judicial review is particularly concerning given the Supreme Court’s recent rulings on presidential immunity and the current administration’s actions.
Read More
Judge Beryl Howell ruled the Trump administration’s takeover of the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) unlawful, declaring actions taken by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) null and void. The judge’s decision reinstated USIP President George Moose and prohibited further actions against the institute’s property. Howell cited the administration’s failure to consult Congress and its forceful takeover, involving law enforcement, as violations of the USIP’s unique structure as an independent think tank. The White House, however, disagreed with the ruling, asserting the president’s right to reduce government entities.
Read More
During Supreme Court arguments concerning a Trump executive order restricting birthright citizenship, Justice Thomas questioned the historical necessity of nationwide injunctions. The Department of Justice argued that such injunctions overstep judicial authority, impacting more than just the original plaintiffs. This case centers on the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches, with a potential ruling impacting the application of federal laws across the nation. The court’s decision will have significant implications for presidential authority and access to legal remedies, potentially creating inconsistent application of fundamental rights. A ruling against nationwide injunctions could lead to a patchwork of legal interpretations and potentially leave thousands of children in a precarious legal situation.
Read More
Following President Trump’s controversial dismissal of Librarian of Congress Dr. Carla Hayden, the administration appointed a temporary leadership team comprised of three Justice Department officials. However, this action immediately sparked legal challenges questioning the legality of executive branch officials serving in the legislative branch. Subsequently, two of the appointed officials were denied access to the Library of Congress, highlighting the ongoing dispute. Democratic lawmakers are now calling for an investigation into the matter, ensuring the conflict will likely continue.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood