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
Donald Trump stated that he would personally make the decision on whether the government should pay him damages related to past federal investigations, including the Mar-a-Lago search and the Russia investigation. Trump has filed administrative claims seeking approximately $230 million under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which typically involves career officials, although Trump allies now hold key positions within the Justice Department. Trump has stated that he is “suing himself” and may donate any awarded proceeds, despite the unusual nature of a sitting president seeking compensation for investigations into his own conduct. Legal experts suggest these claims are unlikely to succeed due to the nature of the investigations and a statute that is not intended for such circumstances.
Read More
President Trump recently boasted about utilizing tariffs as a foreign policy tool, neglecting to acknowledge that this power constitutionally belongs to Congress. Furthermore, the White House plans to use tariff revenue to fund the WIC program during the government shutdown, although the legality of this action remains unclear. This approach raises concerns as it allows the president to circumvent Congress’s “power of the purse” by unilaterally allocating funds without legislative approval. While the intention to support low-income families is positive, the underlying constitutional violation of presidential authority presents a significant problem.
Read More
The presidential notice declares the United States is in a noninternational armed conflict with designated terrorist organizations, though specific groups are not named. This broad classification allows the administration to continue unilateral actions against perceived threats. Critics point out that this interpretation stretches international law and could be used to justify violence against loosely organized groups. Experts like Brian Finucane suggest the lack of clarity regarding the targeted groups’ organization creates legal issues.
Read More
No President Should Have This Kind of Power. It’s a sentiment echoing through the digital spaces, and frankly, it’s hard to disagree. The core issue isn’t just about *who* holds power, but the sheer *amount* of power concentrated in a single person. We’re talking about a situation where the President can seemingly act with impunity, flouting established norms and even, as some are suggesting, the very foundations of our legal and ethical structures.
No President Should Have This Kind of Power, especially when the checks and balances designed to prevent such overreach are failing. Congress, the courts, and even the media, which should be holding the powerful accountable, seem to be sitting on their hands, allowing this power grab to continue unchecked.… Continue reading
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court has allowed President Trump to fire Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter, sparking a dissent from Justice Elena Kagan who accused the court of overriding Congress to grant the president sweeping new powers over independent agencies. This decision signals the conservative majority’s potential willingness to overturn a 1935 precedent limiting presidential removals, specifically Humphrey’s Executor. The court’s actions have repeatedly cleared firings that Congress explicitly prohibited, thus shifting control of key regulatory agencies to the president. Arguments over the matter are expected in December, where the court will determine whether Trump can fire board members for any reason as he seeks to implement his agenda.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood