The article raises concerns regarding the potential for widespread lawlessness within the Trump administration, particularly in light of allegations against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth involving potentially illegal “kill orders.” Should these allegations prove true, they would be a clear violation of federal law, but the author suggests Hegseth may be protected by a presidential pardon, due to Trump’s history of pardoning allies. The author emphasizes that without consequences, there is little incentive for those within the administration to adhere to legal and ethical standards, especially given the historical context of prior presidential pardons and a hyper-partisan climate. The author concludes that the pardon power itself should be amended or eliminated.
Read More
The Supreme Court is currently reviewing cases concerning the power of the President to remove officials from independent agencies. These cases involve disputes over firings from the Library of Congress, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Federal Reserve. One case revolves around a former Library of Congress official who claimed she was part of the legislative branch, making her firing unlawful. The court has allowed some removals to proceed while others remain in question as the court continues to deliberate.
Read More
Responding to a reporter’s question about pardoning a drug trafficker, the subject feigned ignorance and struggled to offer a clear justification. The subject then stated that the request came from Honduras, suggesting it was a political maneuver orchestrated by individuals associated with the current administration. The subject’s response continued with a rambling explanation, implying that the subject had been influenced by external pressures.
Read More
Trump re-pardons a Jan. 6 defendant to erase unrelated gun conviction, and it’s certainly a development that raises a lot of eyebrows. It’s hard not to notice the layers of complexity and potential implications that come with this action. We’re talking about a situation where a pardon was essentially doubled down on. The original pardon related to the defendant’s involvement in the January 6th Capitol riot. This is what you would expect. However, this re-pardon is aimed at wiping away a completely separate conviction – a firearms charge that stemmed from a different set of circumstances. It’s a bit like giving someone a “get out of jail free” card twice, even when the initial card should have been sufficient.… Continue reading
**Judge permanently blocks deployment of National Guard to Portland, saying Trump exceeded his authority**
The news that a judge permanently blocked the deployment of the National Guard to Portland is a welcome development, a clear indication that a branch of government is actively scrutinizing and attempting to curtail the overreach of presidential power. This ruling, specifically citing that Trump exceeded his authority, is important and serves as a critical check and balance. The judge’s decision, based on the fact that Trump’s deployment was “untethered from the facts” and reality, should ideally be straightforward, and the fact that it is even a victory to be celebrated points to the erosion of basic legal principles in these times.… Continue reading
In a recent ruling, a federal judge issued a permanent injunction against President Trump, preventing the deployment of National Guard troops to Oregon. The judge determined the president exceeded his authority in federalizing the Guard, as the criteria for doing so, namely a danger of rebellion and obstruction of federal law enforcement, were not met. The ruling found Trump’s actions violated federal law and the 10th Amendment. The court’s decision, however, does not preclude future deployments if conditions warrant it, and the government is expected to appeal the decision.
Read More
The Supreme Court hearing regarding the Trump administration’s tariffs was heavily criticized, with six justices expressing strong disapproval of the Justice Department’s defense. Observers noted the court’s apparent frustration with the government’s arguments, suggesting a swift and decisive ruling could have been made. Mark Joseph Stern of Slate highlighted the anticipation surrounding the court’s stance on presidential power, suggesting a dislike of taxes may have influenced their decision.
Read More
Amidst the government shutdown, President Trump authorized military personnel paychecks, despite the absence of congressional approval, raising concerns about the legality of the move. Experts have warned that this decision could set a precedent for the president to unilaterally allocate funds, potentially undermining Congress’s authority over government spending. This action involves repurposing defense funds and accepting private donations to pay troops, which legal analysts have deemed questionable under federal law. Furthermore, this situation could exacerbate the existing political tensions, potentially complicating future budget agreements and affecting the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.
Read More
The Supreme Court is currently hearing *Trump v. Illinois*, a case regarding President Trump’s attempt to deploy the National Guard to quell protests outside an immigration detention facility. Trump argues his authority to control the National Guard is exclusive and non-reviewable by courts, citing federal law allowing such action in cases of rebellion or inability to execute laws. However, lower courts have ruled against Trump, finding the situation doesn’t meet the legal requirements for military intervention. The crux of the case lies in whether the Supreme Court will limit Trump’s power or grant him broad authority to use military personnel domestically, especially considering the current court’s composition and past rulings.
Read More
A Virginia couple has filed a federal lawsuit to halt the demolition of the White House’s East Wing, part of a $300 million project to build a new ballroom. The suit alleges that the Trump administration bypassed necessary legal procedures for historic preservation and public transparency. The White House maintains that the president has the authority to renovate and modernize the building, comparing the project to past expansions. The outcome of the lawsuit will determine whether a president can unilaterally alter a national landmark, potentially setting a precedent for the balance of presidential power and public oversight of historic sites.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood