The Justice Department has stated that a judge does not have the authority to appoint a neutral expert to oversee the public release of documents related to the Jeffrey Epstein case. This response was given in a letter to Judge Paul A. Engelmayer, rejecting a request from Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie, who co-sponsored the Epstein Files Transparency Act, citing concerns about the slow release of documents and potential criminal violations in the process. The Justice Department maintains that the representatives lack standing in the case to seek such relief, specifically because they are not parties to the criminal case. The Department expects to update the court soon about the progress of the release, attributing the slow down to the redactions of sensitive information.
Read More
The U.S. military’s operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro was carried out without informing Congress, a practice Representative Seth Moulton and others criticize as a symptom of a weakened legislative branch. Moulton argues that congressional Republicans are unwilling to challenge the Trump administration’s overreach, despite what he sees as an assault on the separation of powers. While some Republicans defended the administration’s actions, citing similar instances from past presidencies, others acknowledged concerns about the administration’s disregard for congressional oversight. The article also notes Democrats’ criticism of Trump’s actions and some efforts within Congress to reassert its war-making powers, with limited success.
Read More
Congress looks to reclaim relevance after ceding power to the White House. The situation, as it currently stands, is a complex one, with the legislative branch appearing to grapple with a diminished role in the face of an increasingly powerful executive. It’s almost as if the very nature of governance is being tested, and the balance of power, once carefully enshrined, seems to be shifting. This dynamic, and the desire to reassert congressional authority, seems to be a major source of contention.
The core of the problem, according to a fair number of people, isn’t just a matter of institutional drift, but a conscious choice made by a specific faction within Congress.… Continue reading
The Supreme Court is currently considering a case that could overturn the 90-year-old precedent set by Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which established that Congress could limit a president’s power to remove executive branch officials. The justices are debating whether President Trump’s firing of a Federal Trade Commissioner was constitutional and if upholding it would violate the separation of powers. If the court sides with the Trump administration, it could weaken the power of independent agencies, sparking concerns about the balance of power between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Arguments have focused on whether the president should have the authority to oversee these agencies, and whether such agencies, by their very nature, are designed to operate independent of presidential oversight. The outcome could reshape the structure of the government and the role of independent agencies.
Read More
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
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood