The Supreme Court has temporarily blocked former President Trump’s attempt to remove Shira Perlmutter from her position as Director of the U.S. Copyright Office, deferring a decision until it reviews related cases. The court cited cases involving the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Reserve, where Trump’s removal of officials is under scrutiny. This decision comes after a lower court ruled Perlmutter is part of the legislative branch, making her removal only possible by a Senate-confirmed Librarian of Congress. The Trump administration argued the decision contravenes established precedent, emphasizing the Register of Copyright’s executive functions, like foreign government meetings.
Read More
The Supreme Court is hearing a case regarding President Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs, a move with significant implications for the global economy. The administration defends the tariffs, arguing they are permissible under emergency law, while challengers, including small businesses and Democratic-leaning states, claim the president overstepped his authority. The core dispute revolves around whether the 1977 emergency powers law grants the president the authority to unilaterally levy tariffs, a power constitutionally reserved for Congress. A ruling against Trump could impact the $195 billion in revenue generated by the tariffs and potentially set the tone for future legal challenges to his policies, despite Trump having appointed a conservative majority to the court.
Read More
In a controversial decision, the Supreme Court allowed Donald Trump to cancel $4 billion in foreign aid appropriated by Congress. The ruling, seemingly based on a “pocket rescission” strategy, granted Trump the ability to withhold funds until they expired, effectively giving him a line-item veto. This decision, reached through the shadow docket, shifts power from the legislative to the executive branch. The Court’s justification focused on the president’s authority over foreign affairs outweighing Congress’ spending control, a move that could lead to a president impounding any funds they dislike, undermining the separation of powers.
Read More
Trump Didn’t Notify Congress About a High-Stakes SEALs Mission. That Could Be an Issue.
So, the headline says “Trump Didn’t Notify Congress About a High-Stakes SEALs Mission. That Could Be an Issue.” And honestly, that’s the understatement of the century, isn’t it? You know, the whole idea behind checks and balances is that the President doesn’t just get to operate in a vacuum, especially when it comes to military actions involving highly trained special forces. We’re talking about potentially life-or-death scenarios, and the fact that the Commander-in-Chief allegedly kept Congress in the dark about such operations is, well, it’s a pretty big deal.… Continue reading
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has authorized the deployment of up to 600 military lawyers to the Justice Department to serve as temporary immigration judges, prompted by the Trump administration’s increased focus on immigration enforcement and a substantial backlog of approximately 3.5 million cases. The military will begin sending groups of 150 attorneys, both military and civilian, “as soon as practicable.” The move aims to address the strain on immigration courts, compounded by the departure of numerous immigration judges, with the Pentagon’s executive secretary sending the request to his DOJ counterpart. Critics, including the American Immigration Lawyers Association, express concerns regarding the lack of specialized immigration law expertise among the temporary judges and its potential impact on due process, questioning the decision to send in lawyers from the military rather than hiring additional judges.
Read More
The separation of powers in the United States government is intended to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful, with the judicial branch serving as a check on the executive. However, a provision within the proposed “Big Ugly Bill” aims to cripple the judiciary’s ability to fulfill this role by requiring plaintiffs to post bonds to challenge the federal government, effectively barring most individuals and organizations from seeking legal redress. Fortunately, the Senate parliamentarian has ruled that this bond requirement does not comply with the special rules, potentially forcing the bill to be rewritten or face the possibility of a filibuster. The fate of this provision remains uncertain, but its potential impact on limiting the judicial branch’s ability to challenge the executive branch could be severe.
Read More
The appeals court’s recent decision refusing to allow the Department of Justice (DOJ) to intervene in E. Jean Carroll’s $83 million verdict against Donald Trump is a significant development, raising questions about the separation of powers and the potential misuse of taxpayer funds. The court’s rejection effectively prevents the government from covering the damages Trump owes Carroll, leaving him personally responsible for the substantial sum. This outcome directly counters Trump’s attempts to utilize the Westfall Act, a law designed to protect federal employees from personal liability for actions taken within the scope of their employment. Trump’s strategy was to portray his actions as “official acts,” despite the fact that the alleged assault and defamation occurred well before his presidency.… Continue reading
The Supreme Court temporarily blocked lower court orders compelling the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to release records and allow depositions to a government watchdog group. The Court found the lower court’s discovery order insufficiently tailored, citing separation of powers concerns regarding internal executive branch communications. The case centers on whether DOGE, a presidential advisory body, is subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a matter the Supreme Court did not address directly this time. The case was remanded to the appeals court for further proceedings. The dispute highlights the tension between executive branch confidentiality and public transparency regarding presidential advisory bodies.
Read More
President Trump has privately criticized several Supreme Court justices he appointed, including Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, for not sufficiently supporting his agenda. These complaints, spanning at least a year, stem from specific rulings and have been amplified by right-wing allies who deem Barrett particularly “weak.” While Trump publicly maintains respect for the Court, his behind-the-scenes frustration is fueled by perceived ideological inconsistencies in their decisions. Despite this criticism, Barrett consistently votes with the Court’s conservative bloc on many key issues.
Read More
The Trump administration is escalating its campaign to expand executive power, targeting the Library of Congress and claiming it falls under executive branch authority. This assertion, along with attempts to influence other independent agencies like the GAO, represents a broader effort to blur the lines separating government branches. The administration’s actions have faced some resistance, including legal challenges and pushback from Congress, though limited. The White House’s rationale centers on a claimed mandate to rein in spending and reshape governance, ignoring established norms of separation of powers. Control over the Library would grant access to vast amounts of sensitive data, including congressional research requests and copyright information.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood