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
A US federal court blocked President Trump’s global tariffs, ruling that the invoked emergency law didn’t grant him unilateral authority to impose them. The court cited the Constitution’s grant of commerce regulation power to Congress. The Trump administration plans to appeal, while various parties, including affected businesses and states, celebrated the decision. Global markets reacted positively to the ruling, although the long-term effects remain uncertain pending appeals.
Read More
Court says Trump doesn’t have the authority to set tariffs. This ruling, stemming from a full court decision, finally puts a stop to a practice many believed was unconstitutional from the start. The decision clarifies a fundamental principle of our system of government: the power to impose tariffs rests with Congress, not the executive branch.
Court says Trump doesn’t have the authority to set tariffs, and this impacts far more than just the immediate economic consequences. The ruling highlights a crucial separation of powers, a cornerstone of our democratic framework. It underscores the importance of adhering to the checks and balances designed to prevent the concentration of power in the hands of a single individual, regardless of their position.… Continue reading
In a lawsuit filed in federal court, NPR and three other public radio stations challenge President Trump’s executive order defunding public broadcasting. The plaintiffs argue the order violates First Amendment rights to free speech and press, infringes on Congressional authority, and threatens the viability of a crucial public information system. The suit alleges the order aims to punish perceived media bias in news coverage. The plaintiffs contend the executive order is unconstitutional and must be overturned.
Read More
The Supreme Court’s decision to curtail the independence of federal agencies fundamentally alters the balance of power, granting the executive branch significantly more control. This empowers President Trump to prioritize political aims over expertise and reasoned policy, creating long-term damage to the stability and effectiveness of government institutions. Simultaneously, various legal battles are unfolding, with some courts blocking Trump administration actions like mass layoffs and the silencing of Voice of America, while others permit them to continue. The ongoing challenges to the administration’s actions highlight the deep political divisions and the increasingly fraught relationship between the branches of government.
Read More
Senator Rubio erroneously asserted a dichotomy between the federal and judicial branches, claiming immunity from judicial oversight regarding foreign policy conduct and communication. This statement reveals a disregard for the tripartite system of government, specifically the principle of separation of powers and checks and balances. His position reflects a belief in executive dominance, mirroring the Trump administration’s apparent view of unchecked presidential authority. This disregard for judicial review is particularly concerning given the Supreme Court’s recent rulings on presidential immunity and the current administration’s actions.
Read More
Senator Rubio erroneously stated a two-branch government model, ignoring the legislative branch, and further asserted his noncompliance with judicial oversight of foreign policy decisions. This declaration reveals a disregard for the constitutional principle of separation of powers and checks and balances. Rubio’s position aligns with the Trump administration’s apparent belief in unchecked presidential authority, potentially emboldened by recent Supreme Court rulings on presidential immunity. The resulting actions, such as deportations without due process, demonstrate a president operating outside the constraints of law.
Read More
Matt Underwood 
John Q. Hosedrinker