The White House is working on an executive order on elections, the press secretary has confirmed, and this has naturally sparked a flurry of reactions. It’s the kind of announcement that immediately gets people thinking: what’s the angle here? What’s the goal? And, perhaps most importantly, is it even legal?
It’s crucial to understand that the power to set election laws and procedures primarily resides with state legislatures and Congress, not the president. While an executive order can certainly be issued, it doesn’t automatically override existing state or federal laws. That’s a fundamental principle of how our system of government is structured.… Continue reading
A New York judge has dismissed a legal challenge from Texas attempting to enforce a civil judgment against a doctor who prescribed abortion pills via telemedicine. The Texas Attorney General sought to enforce the judgment against Dr. Margaret Carpenter, but the Ulster County Clerk refused, citing New York’s shield law protecting providers from out-of-state actions. Justice David Gandin ruled in favor of the clerk, stating the medical services were legal in New York and protected under the shield law. This ruling serves as a precedent for the state’s shield law, and the Texas Attorney General’s office has not yet commented on whether the case will be appealed.
Read More
“Political opposition is not rebellion,” would certainly make a powerful sign, wouldn’t it? That sentiment lies at the heart of an important legal battle. An appeals court has decisively blocked Donald Trump’s attempt to deploy National Guard troops in Chicago, and this ruling underlines a crucial principle: protesting, even with acts of civil disobedience, doesn’t automatically equate to “rebellion.” The court made it unequivocally clear that the administration hadn’t presented sufficient evidence to justify such a deployment, specifically failing to demonstrate an organized rebellion or that local officials were unable to maintain law and order.
The court’s decision is significant because it extends a previous order that limited the president’s ability to federalize the National Guard, while also rejecting the administration’s core arguments about judicial oversight.… Continue reading
Illinois Governor JB Pritzker reported that the Trump administration informed him of plans to federalize and deploy 300 Illinois National Guard members within the state. Pritzker strongly condemned this action, stating there was no need for military troops and that he would not comply with the demand. This news followed the President’s authorization of National Guard deployment in Portland, Oregon, where a federal judge is considering a lawsuit challenging the deployment. Trump’s actions are part of a broader trend of deploying or threatening to deploy troops to various cities, including Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., facing legal challenges and criticism.
Read More
Snubbing Kennedy, States Announce Plans to Coordinate on Vaccines
The unfolding scenario revolves around states taking matters into their own hands, particularly regarding public health, and specifically, vaccines. The key sentiment here is that certain states are stepping up to fill the void, or perhaps the perceived void, left by a perceived lack of federal leadership or, even worse, active obstruction. The catalyst? A perceived threat, specifically a certain individual whose stance on vaccines is seen as dangerous and harmful. This individual is seen as a national security threat.
The response to this perceived threat is multifaceted. One aspect is the formation of coalitions among states, particularly those with shared political ideologies or a common understanding of public health priorities.… Continue reading
Trump says he will order voter ID requirement for every vote, and the immediate reaction is a mix of disbelief and frustration. The core issue, as many point out, is the simple fact that he doesn’t have the authority to do this. The United States Constitution, in no uncertain terms, grants the power to regulate elections to the individual states, with potential oversight from Congress. The idea of a presidential “order” on this front is immediately seen as unconstitutional and legally unenforceable. It’s like a fundamental misunderstanding of how the country’s system of government actually works.
The comments quickly shift from the legality to the practicalities.… Continue reading
So, let’s dive right into it: the headline is Illinois judge denies Paxton’s request to help arrest Texas Democrats. It’s pretty straightforward, but the story behind it is anything but. The crux of the issue is this: Ken Paxton, the Attorney General of Texas, wanted Illinois to get involved in bringing back some Texas Democrats who had left the state. But the Illinois judge wasn’t having any of it.
Why would an Illinois judge even consider helping out with a matter like this? The original request was essentially to assist in a civil matter, not a criminal one. The warrants themselves weren’t for criminal charges; they were related to the Texas Democrats’ departure from the state.… Continue reading
In a recent development, a New York county clerk has once again refused to file a Texas civil judgment against a doctor accused of prescribing abortion pills. This decision is based on New York’s shield law, which protects providers from legal actions in states with abortion bans. Despite demands from the Texas Attorney General’s office, the clerk has maintained the rejection, citing New York law. This case, along with another involving extradition to Louisiana, could test the boundaries of state shield laws and the legal battles surrounding abortion access.
Read More
In response to President Trump’s efforts to withhold federal funding, Democratic legislators in several states are introducing bills that would allow them to withhold state payments to the federal government. The proposed legislation, introduced in states like Connecticut, Maryland, New York, and Wisconsin, aims to counter the administration’s actions, which have frozen funds for various programs. While these bills face legal challenges and are unlikely to significantly impact the flow of funds, they represent a symbolic effort to challenge the federal government’s actions and protect state residents. Legal experts point out that the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause gives precedence to the federal government, but also recognize the potential for retaliation from the Trump administration.
Read More
A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction preventing the Trump administration from withholding billions in transportation funding from 20 states that refused to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. The judge ruled the administration lacked the legal authority to tie transportation funds to immigration enforcement, deeming the policy arbitrary and lacking specificity. The states had argued that the administration’s actions were an overreach of power. The injunction halts enforcement of the new rules while the lawsuit proceeds. This decision follows a similar ruling blocking the withholding of funds from sanctuary cities.
Read More
Matt Underwood 
John Q. Hosedrinker