A federal judge ruled the Trump administration’s takeover of the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) unlawful, declaring the administration’s actions null and void. The Department of Government Efficiency’s forceful seizure of USIP, including the firing of staff and transfer of property, violated the law by disregarding USIP’s independent, congressionally-approved status. Judge Beryl Howell sided with former USIP board members and the president, who had sued the administration. The judge’s decision prevents the administration from further dismantling the organization.
Read More
Following a confrontation at a New Jersey ICE facility, a DHS official confirmed that arresting Democratic members of Congress is under consideration. This announcement comes after Newark Mayor Baraka’s arrest, the circumstances of which are disputed. DHS claims body camera footage shows lawmakers assaulting ICE officers, while the lawmakers deny wrongdoing and allege assault by ICE agents. The arrests would represent a significant escalation in tensions between the administration and Congress, raising concerns about separation of powers. Legal challenges are expected to follow.
Read More
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem defied a unanimous Supreme Court order to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the U.S., claiming there is no scenario where he will return. Despite the court mandating the administration “facilitate” Garcia’s return due to a lack of due process, Noem insisted Garcia, deported to El Salvador, is a dangerous individual and will be deported again if he returns. Senator Chris Murphy deemed Noem’s statements “incredibly chilling” for the balance of powers, while other senators criticized her for evading questions and employing political rhetoric. The administration’s actions are a potential violation of a Supreme Court order.
Read More
A federal judge recently issued a significant ruling, blocking President Trump’s attempt to dismantle three crucial federal agencies. This action directly challenges the Trump administration’s efforts to abolish the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), the Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA), and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS). The judge’s decision highlights a fundamental constitutional conflict.
The core of the judge’s reasoning centers on the separation of powers. The judge explicitly stated that the Trump administration’s actions disregarded the established roles of the different branches of government. The ruling emphasizes that Congress holds the sole power to create laws and allocate funds, while the Executive branch’s responsibility lies in implementing those laws and spending the appropriated funds.… Continue reading
A federal judge has ruled that the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to target gang members was unlawful. This decision highlights a fundamental clash between executive power and judicial oversight, underscoring the vital role of checks and balances within the American system of government.
The judge’s ruling centers on the crucial point that the President cannot unilaterally define the conditions for invoking the Alien Enemies Act and then simply declare those conditions to exist. Such an action would effectively eliminate any limitations on executive authority under the Act, allowing the executive branch to override the established legal framework.… Continue reading
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated that any judge obstructing federal law enforcement, regardless of rank, risks prosecution, citing the recent arrest of Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan for allegedly obstructing the arrest of an undocumented immigrant. Leavitt emphasized that the Department of Justice would determine which judges to pursue, following Attorney General Bondi’s declaration of intent to prosecute judges hindering administration policies. This announcement follows President Trump’s criticism of judges blocking his immigration initiatives and his call for the impeachment of Judge James Boasberg. The administration’s actions represent a significant escalation of the conflict between the executive and judicial branches.
Read More
If Trump flouts the Abrego Garcia rulings, the Constitution is done. This isn’t a hypothetical scenario; the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision demands action, yet the administration’s inaction speaks volumes. The delay alone suggests a blatant disregard for the rule of law, a cornerstone of our constitutional democracy. We’re not merely witnessing a disagreement; we’re observing a potential unraveling of the very fabric of our governance.
If Trump continues to defy this ruling, it will not only be a violation of the court’s authority but a direct assault on the foundational principles upon which the country operates. The Constitution isn’t simply a document; it represents the agreement between the governed and the government, an agreement now seemingly under threat of being unilaterally broken.… Continue reading
Trump’s tariffs are unconstitutional, and a lawsuit is underway to challenge them. This isn’t just about the economic impact; it’s about the fundamental principle of the rule of law. The very foundation of our system is being tested, and the consequences of inaction are severe.
The argument centers on the President’s authority to impose tariffs. The claim is that the tariffs constitute taxation without proper congressional authorization, directly violating the Constitution. This isn’t a minor technicality; it strikes at the heart of the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.
This isn’t just a matter of legal wrangling; it touches on the broader question of executive overreach.… Continue reading
Five small businesses filed suit against President Trump in the U.S. Court of International Trade, challenging his recently imposed tariffs as an illegal usurpation of Congress’s power to levy taxes. The suit argues that Trump’s declaration of a trade deficit emergency, used to justify the tariffs under the IEEPA, is unfounded and that the act does not grant him such unilateral authority. The Liberty Justice Center, representing the plaintiffs, contends that the tariffs, impacting businesses nationwide, are economically devastating and based on a fabricated crisis. The lawsuit seeks to invalidate the tariffs, emphasizing the principle of “no taxation without representation.”
Read More
The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) is challenging the Trump administration’s tariffs on Chinese imports, arguing that their imposition via the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) constitutes an unconstitutional overreach of executive power. The lawsuit claims that the IEEPA, intended for swift responses to international economic crises, does not grant the president authority to unilaterally levy tariffs, a power reserved for Congress. The NCLA asserts that the tariffs are not only unauthorized but also lack a demonstrable connection to the declared national emergency, specifically citing the discrepancy between the stated opioid crisis and the broad-based tariff implementation. The group seeks a court order declaring the tariffs unlawful and halting their enforcement.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood