The American Bar Association (ABA) filed a federal lawsuit to permanently halt President Trump’s actions against law firms. Trump issued executive orders targeting firms with punitive sanctions for political reasons, pressuring them into deals involving substantial pro bono services and the cessation of DEI initiatives. This resulted in a chilling effect on Big Law, causing firms to curtail pro bono work challenging administration policies, and impacting the ABA’s ability to pursue litigation. The lawsuit cites prior unconstitutional rulings against similar orders, arguing that Trump’s actions are unlawful and undermine the independence of the American bar.
Read More
California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, alleging the federalization of 2,000 California National Guard members was unlawful and an overreach of presidential authority. Bonta argues the deployment was unnecessary, as protests had subsided before the action, and that it diverted crucial resources from wildfire preparedness. The suit seeks a court order to halt the deployment, claiming the president abused his power for political gain and infringed upon the governor’s authority. The White House countered that the deployment was necessary to quell unrest, while Governor Newsom accused Trump of manufacturing a crisis for political purposes.
Read More
The deployment of federal troops to Los Angeles, without the request of the state governor, has ignited a firestorm of criticism. This unprecedented action, the first of its kind since the 1960s, is being widely condemned as a blatant overreach of presidential power and a dangerous step towards authoritarianism.
The stark contrast between this deployment and the last time a president federalized a state’s National Guard without a governor’s consent is striking. In 1965, President Johnson deployed the National Guard to protect civil rights activists in Selma, Alabama, directly opposing the governor’s wishes. This time, however, the deployment seems to lack any clear justification beyond a perceived need to quell protests.… Continue reading
A federal court blocked President Trump’s widespread tariffs, deeming them beyond his legal authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The court rejected the administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted such broad tariff powers, finding the levies on various countries (including a global 10% tariff) addressed trade imbalances rather than genuine emergencies. The ruling specifically targeted tariffs imposed on China, Mexico, and Canada, deemed unrelated to stated justifications of drug trafficking and illegal immigration. The Trump administration plans to appeal the decision.
Read More
A Texas federal judge ruled that President Trump’s use of the 18th-century Alien Enemies Act to expedite the deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members was unlawful, exceeding the president’s authority. This decision, the first to conclude that the act cannot be invoked during peacetime, prevents the administration from using the law to detain or deport members of the Tren de Aragua gang within the judge’s district. While the administration may appeal, the ruling is a significant setback for Trump’s deportation efforts, as other courts have also issued rulings against the administration’s use of the AEA. The judge emphasized that courts retain the authority to interpret the scope of the law, even when evaluating a presidential proclamation.
Read More
In response to a question regarding the legality of the president’s plan to deport incarcerated criminals, Bondi offered an unsupported assertion that the initiative would decrease crime and that these individuals would face maximum sentencing. However, this plan is likely illegal, violating federal law and potentially several constitutional amendments. The core issue lies in the illegality of deporting U.S. citizens, regardless of their criminal history. Such a plan would require significant legal reform, and is unlikely to be implemented.
Read More
This executive order mandates a “zero-based regulating” approach to energy production regulations, aiming to stimulate innovation and economic growth. Specific agencies are directed to incorporate sunset provisions into existing and new regulations, requiring periodic review and potential rescission by a certain date unless extended. This process will subject regulations to public comment on costs and benefits, ensuring their continued relevance. The order excludes regulatory permitting regimes and clarifies that regulatory expirations will not count towards existing deregulation requirements.
Read More
Executive Order 14215 asserts broad presidential control over numerous federal agencies, notably the Federal Election Commission (FEC), prompting a Democratic National Committee (DNC) lawsuit. The DNC argues this action, explicitly targeting the FEC, unconstitutionally undermines the agency’s independence and jeopardizes fair elections. The lawsuit cites established Supreme Court precedent supporting Congress’s authority to protect agencies from direct presidential control, directly contradicting the executive order’s claims of Article II justification. The order’s constitutionality, particularly regarding the FEC’s authority, is the central point of legal contention.
Read More
President Trump threatened to withhold federal funding from Maine unless Governor Janet Mills banned transgender athletes from women’s sports, prompting Mills to defiantly declare her intention to challenge the order in court. This followed a White House meeting where Trump issued similar threats to other Democratic governors. The Department of Education subsequently initiated an investigation into Maine for alleged Title IX violations. Mills framed the dispute as a constitutional battle over the rule of law, warning of the potential for future attacks on other groups. The controversy ignited intense debate within Maine, with some politicians publicly targeting a transgender athlete and others condemning such actions.
Read More
Governor Mills responded to a federal investigation into alleged Maine Title IX violations, asserting that the investigation is a politically motivated attempt by the President to coerce compliance and withhold federally appropriated funds. This action, she argues, violates the U.S. Constitution and constitutes an abuse of power. The Governor emphasizes that this case represents a broader threat to the rule of law and warns of potential future targets. Maine will vigorously defend its interests in court, framing the issue not merely as an athletic competition dispute, but as a fundamental challenge to presidential authority.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood