The Supreme Court ruled that President Trump could remove two federal agency board members, Gwynne Wilcox and Cathy Harris, while their lawsuits challenging their termination are pending. This decision, while allowing the removals, strongly implied that Federal Reserve board members possess unique protection against presidential dismissal. The Court’s majority reasoned that the executive power vested in the President allows removal of executive officers, subject to limited exceptions. However, a dissenting opinion argued this ruling undermines established precedent protecting the independence of administrative agencies, including the Federal Reserve, and creates an unnecessary exception. The Court’s stay order temporarily allows the removals but does not definitively resolve the broader constitutional questions involved.
Read More
A lawsuit, *V.O.S. Selections v. Trump*, challenges the legality of President Trump’s tariffs before a three-judge panel. The plaintiffs, small import businesses, argue the tariffs violate the “major questions doctrine” due to their significant economic impact, citing a predicted $4,900 reduction in average household income. Support for this claim comes from an amicus brief signed by numerous former Republican officials. The case’s outcome, however, remains uncertain, as the major questions doctrine is novel and its application to presidential actions, especially in foreign policy, is untested.
Read More
President Trump’s public statements asserting his authority to unilaterally return wrongfully deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia, yet refusing to do so based on legal counsel, represent a defiance of the Supreme Court’s mandate. This action reveals the administration’s bad faith efforts to expand presidential removal powers unchecked. Trump’s admissions unintentionally undermine his legal position and broader agenda through his own incompetence. The situation highlights a fundamental breakdown of accountability within the administration.
Read More
During an interview, the President contradicted his prior commitment to comply with all Supreme Court orders. Despite a unanimous Supreme Court ruling mandating the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the President claimed his legal team interpreted the order differently and he had not personally intervened, citing Garcia’s alleged MS-13 affiliation and violent past. He further stated that he hadn’t directly asked El Salvador’s President for Garcia’s release, attributing his inaction to a lack of instruction from his lawyers. The President ultimately expressed his belief that Garcia is not deserving of a trial.
Read More
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt referenced President Trump’s suggestion to deport violent U.S. citizens, conditionally stating it must be legal, a point Justice Sotomayor underscored in a dissenting opinion regarding potential unlawful deportations without judicial review. This concern is further highlighted by the Abrego Garcia case, where the government resists correcting a citizen’s erroneous deportation despite admitting error. Constitutional scholars warn of the executive branch’s unchecked power if this position prevails, impacting the scope of presidential authority. The upcoming Supreme Court decision in Abrego Garcia’s case will significantly determine the extent of this power.
Read More
The legality of removing U.S. citizens, a question posed to the government, is addressed: It is legally impossible to deport U.S. citizens. While President Trump has publicly and privately discussed the “potential” deportation of citizens, this refers solely to violent, repeat offenders. Therefore, no U.S. citizens are subject to removal based on current law.
Read More
President Trump invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport five Venezuelan nationals, citing their affiliation with the designated terrorist organization Tren de Aragua. This action, immediately challenged by the ACLU and Democracy Forward, was temporarily blocked by a federal judge who issued a 14-day restraining order. The lawsuit argues the act’s wartime application is inappropriate during peacetime and violates established immigration procedures. The judge’s order maintains the status quo pending a full hearing.
Read More
Judge Howell’s decision invalidated the President’s attempt to remove a National Labor Relations Board member, citing a clear violation of law. The ruling emphasizes that presidential authority is not absolute and rejects the notion of a president operating with kingly or dictatorial powers. Howell asserted that the Constitution explicitly prevents such unilateral actions by the executive branch. This dismissal of the President’s actions underscores the limitations on presidential power as defined by Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
Read More
Judge Beryl Howell ruled that President Trump illegally dismissed NLRB Chairwoman Gwynne Wilcox, rejecting the administration’s broad interpretation of executive power. Howell’s decision, granting a preliminary injunction to reinstate Wilcox, found that the president lacks the authority to fire NLRB members at will, violating established law. This ruling follows similar decisions concerning other officials dismissed by the Trump administration, highlighting a pattern of executive overreach and challenging the extent of presidential authority. The judge criticized the administration’s assertion of virtually unchecked presidential power, emphasizing the Constitution’s carefully balanced framework.
Read More
President Trump’s March 4, 2025, address to Congress showcased his expansive view of presidential power, claiming unilateral authority over issues ranging from free speech to geographical renaming. This assertion of virtually kinglike power contrasts with Article II of the Constitution, which, while not granting unlimited power, establishes the president as Commander in Chief. Historical concerns, dating back to the Constitution’s ratification, mirrored contemporary anxieties about unchecked presidential authority, focusing on the potential for abuse of power as commander in chief and the granting of pardons. Ultimately, the Constitution’s success hinges not solely on its checks and balances, but on the citizenry’s ability to elect virtuous leaders.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker