The Supreme Court issued two rulings favoring the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). First, it permitted DOGE access to sensitive Social Security data for fraud detection and system modernization, despite concerns about a potential fishing expedition and privacy violations. Second, the Court temporarily halted a lower court order requiring DOGE to release documents under a transparency law, narrowing the scope of the disclosure while leaving the possibility of some future release open. These decisions, met with dissent from the Court’s liberal justices, represent significant victories for DOGE amidst ongoing controversy surrounding its data handling practices and transparency. The rulings have significant implications for future cases involving DOGE’s access to government data.
Read More
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of Marlean Ames, an Ohio woman who alleged reverse discrimination based on her sexual orientation, overturning a Sixth Circuit precedent. The Court invalidated a stricter standard of proof for majority-group plaintiffs alleging discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This decision eliminates the requirement for such plaintiffs to demonstrate “background circumstances” of discrimination, impacting similar cases across 20 states and the District of Columbia. The case is remanded for reconsideration under the new, equal standard for all plaintiffs.
Read More
The Supreme Court issued a ruling that significantly weakens the protection of independent executive branch agencies from presidential removal. This decision, foreshadowing a potential overturning of the nearly century-old *Humphrey’s Executor* precedent, allows the President greater control over these agencies. The dissenting justices criticized the majority’s actions as prioritizing the President’s wishes over established legal precedent and the will of Congress. While acknowledging the Federal Reserve’s unique protection, the Court’s approach suggests a willingness to dismantle the independence of other agencies. This ruling brings the country closer to a unitary executive model, potentially transforming the executive branch into an extension of presidential power.
Read More
In a single day, three federal judges issued rulings against President Trump, halting key components of his agenda. A Washington judge blocked his executive order on voting changes, citing Congress’s authority over federal elections. Separately, judges in San Francisco and New Hampshire prevented the administration from withholding federal funds from sanctuary cities and schools with diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, respectively, due to concerns over due process and unconstitutionally vague policies. These decisions follow Trump’s recent criticism of judges as engaging in “judicial insurrection.”
Read More
In a single day, three federal judges blocked key portions of President Trump’s agenda. Judge Orrick blocked funding restrictions targeting “sanctuary cities,” deeming them unconstitutional coercion. Judge McCafferty halted the withholding of funds from schools with diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, citing First Amendment violations. Finally, Judge Kollar-Kotelly blocked elements of an executive order altering election administration, asserting that the President overstepped his authority. These rulings represent the latest setbacks in a series of legal challenges against the Trump administration’s actions.
Read More
Four House Democrats traveled to El Salvador to demand the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran citizen wrongfully deported by the Trump administration despite a Supreme Court order for his return. The Democrats aim to pressure the White House to comply with the court ruling, which was further supported by a recent federal court decision rejecting the administration’s appeal. Abrego Garcia’s deportation stemmed from what the administration called an “administrative error,” despite an immigration judge’s ruling against deportation due to potential persecution. The trip is privately funded after Republican committee chairs rejected funding requests.
Read More
Judge Paula Xinis is considering holding the Trump administration in contempt of court for failing to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador. Despite a Supreme Court ruling deeming the deportation illegal and ordering the administration’s cooperation, the government has provided insufficient evidence of its efforts to comply. The judge ordered depositions from relevant officials and the submission of further documentation, threatening additional sanctions for non-compliance. The administration claims it would facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return if he presented himself at a port of entry, a position disputed by the judge given the Salvadoran president’s public refusal to return him.
Read More
The Trump administration’s assertion that it bears no responsibility for returning an illegally deported Maryland man to the United States is deeply troubling. Their claim hinges on a narrow interpretation of a Supreme Court ruling, arguing that the court’s mandate to “facilitate” the man’s return only requires adjusting his immigration status upon his release from a high-security El Salvadoran prison. This interpretation effectively shifts the onus entirely onto El Salvador, absolving the administration of any proactive role in securing his repatriation.
This position raises serious concerns about the administration’s commitment to upholding the rule of law. The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision clearly implied a more active role from the U.S.… Continue reading
The Supreme Court’s unanimous 9-0 decision ordering the release of a Maryland father, Abrego Garcia, from an El Salvadorian prison is a significant event, raising questions about the Trump administration’s willingness to comply with a Supreme Court order and the potential consequences of defiance. The ruling itself is a clear victory for justice, but the path to securing Garcia’s release and return remains uncertain.
The Supreme Court’s order mandates that the government “facilitate” Garcia’s release and ensure his case proceeds as if he hadn’t been improperly deported. However, the court acknowledged ambiguity in the lower court’s order, potentially exceeding its authority in matters of foreign affairs.… Continue reading
The Supreme Court’s July ruling affirmed the President’s unrestricted power to remove executive branch agency heads. This power, argued the administration, is crucial for effective executive branch management. The lower court’s intervention was deemed an unprecedented infringement on the separation of powers. The filing emphasized the need to prevent lower courts from dictating presidential personnel decisions. This follows a previous Supreme Court decision granting broad presidential immunity.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood