Trump allies attempt DC Bar takeover

Allies of President Trump are attempting a takeover of the D.C. Bar Association as voting ends Wednesday in the election to lead the prestigious organization.
The two-way race for president is between Diane Seltzer and Brad Bondi, the brother of Attorney General Pam Bondi.
It comes at a moment of heightened tension between the White House and the legal profession, which has come under attack by a president unafraid to punish prominent law firms, attack judges and clear house in his own Department of Justice.
The association does not decide attorney discipline matters, but anti-Trump attorneys and pundits are sounding the alarm about what a Make America Great Again takeover would mean for the group, the largest unified bar in the country with roughly 119,000 members.
'Ordinarily, I wouldn't hold the views or conduct of someone's relative against them. Indeed, I'm pretty much the last person who should be doing that,' George Conway said in a video published just before voting began, seemingly referencing his ex-wife, Kellyanne Conway, Trump's former campaign manager and White House counselor.
'But these are not ordinary times.'
Already, the contentious race has rocketed voter turnout. The D.C. Bar said in a press release Tuesday that nearly 37,000 members, or 41 percent of eligible voters, had cast ballots so far — a significant jump from last year's 7,563 votes, about 8.5 percent turnout.
Brad Bondi is global co-chair of the investigations and white-collar defense practice at the law firm Paul Hastings. In the past, he's represented billionaire Elon Musk and Tesla, the Trump Media and Technology Group and a group linked to YouTuber MrBeast in its bid to purchase TikTok.
He's emphasized improved technology and a desire to see stronger participation in the D.C. Bar as touchpoints of his campaign, vowing in a candidate statement to ensure the group remains nonpartisan.
'The D.C. Bar is not, and must not become, a political organization,' he said. 'I will fight vigorously against any attempts externally or internally to change that.'
Though the association does not handle attorney discipline, the group has gotten caught up in political crosshairs after the D.C. Bar permanently disbarred former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani and began pursuing the same punishment for Jeffrey Clark, both of whom provided legal advice to Trump in his efforts to overturn President Biden's 2020 election victory.
'The ordeal I've had to endure broke many laws and has repeatedly denied me due process. And all I did was take a firm and zealous stand in giving private, privileged advice to the President of the United States,' Clark wrote on X last week.
Seltzer runs an eponymous employment law firm and is endorsed by nearly two-dozen former D.C. Bar Association presidents.
'My priority is making sure that the rule of law is upheld, that we feel that we are safe to do our jobs and that we can go forward every day representing the clients we choose,' Seltzer said at a meet-the-candidates event last month, according to NPR.
And it's not just the presidential race. Alicia Long, a top deputy to interim U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, is running for treasurer.
The results are expected to be announced on Monday.
Welcome to , The Hill's weekly courts newsletter from Ella Lee (elee@thehill.com) and Zach Schonfeld (zschonfeld@thehill.com). Email us tips, or reach out to us on X (@ByEllaLee, @ZachASchonfeld) or Signal (elee.03, zachschonfeld.48).
In the wake of two violent attacks against Jews, the Justice Department has swiftly cracked down on suspects while decrying the incidents as a symptom of rising antisemitism.
Last month, two Israeli Embassy staffers were gunned down outside a Jewish museum in Washington. The suspect in that incident, Elias Rodriguez, was slapped with an array of charges the next day, including murder of foreign officials and causing death through the use of a firearm — both which carry a possible sentence of death or life in prison.
Then, on Sunday, 12 people were injured in Boulder, Colo., when Molotov cocktails were hurled at demonstrators calling for the return of Israeli hostages in Gaza.
Mohamed Soliman, the suspect, was charged with a federal hate crime Monday that carries a sentence up to life in prison. He faces dozens of state charges, as well, and federal law enforcement signaled that additional charges are being weighed.
'We've moved swiftly to charge quickly, just to send a message to the community that no acts of antisemitism are going to be tolerated,' said J. Bishop Grewell, acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Colorado. 'There are severe consequences.'
Since returning to the White House, the Trump administration has said battling antisemitism is a top priority. The president has stripped the legal status of pro-Palestine protesters, cut federal funding for universities he claims breed antisemitism and issued an executive order directing his administration to fight back.
Little time was wasted condemning the attacks.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi decried the shooting as 'brutal, anti-Semitic violence' and vowed to secure the 'most severe possible punishment' for Rodriguez. She called the Boulder attack 'vile anti-Semitic violence' and said the government would 'refuse to accept a world in which Jewish Americans are targeted for who they are and what they believe.'
Harmeet Dhillon, assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division, said 'hateful violence against Jewish Americans will be met with the full force of the Justice Department' after the shooting and vowed 'zero tolerance' for such acts after the attack in Colorado.
Soliman is slated to appear in state court Thursday and federal court on Friday. Rodriguez is due back in court on June 18.
Trump and his allies are waging a war against the Federalist Society as parts of his second-term agenda are blocked by some of his own judicial nominees.
The boiling point — which came when Trump called longtime Federalist leader Leonard Leo a 'sleazebag' after a court blocked the bulk of his tariffs — has unleashed a rebellion pitting the MAGA movement against the conservative legal stronghold that helped Trump reshape the courts during his first term by offering up conservative judges as suggestions to fill benches across the country.
As the president embarks on choosing his next set of judicial nominees in his second term, his decisions are now being shaped by a new, MAGA-branded team.
Inside the White House, judicial appointments are being spearheaded by chief of staff Susie Wiles, White House counsel David Warrington and Deputy White House counsel Steve Kenny.
But with the Federalist Society on the outs, the process has shifted to include outside influence from the Article III Project, which is spearheaded by close Trump legal ally Mike Davis.
Davis served as chief counsel for nominations to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) during Trump's first term, where in that role he helped clear the way for the president's judicial nominees. He also previously clerked for Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, Trump's first nominee to the high court.
His relationship with Trump grew closer after the FBI raided the president's Mar-a-Lago resort and he defended the president in the press.
Meanwhile, the Federalist Society looked the other way, Davis said in an interview.
'They abandoned President Trump during the lawfare against him,' he said. 'And not only did they abandon him — they had several FedSoc leaders who participated in the lawfare and threw gas on the fire.'
It's a major shift from Trump's first term, when Trump's alliance with Leo was bountiful.
Read more about the splintering relationship and new dynamic here.
Read the full order list here.
IN: Ballot deadlines
The Supreme Court took up four new cases at its recent conference. We highlighted three of them in last week's edition.
Illinois ballot deadline challenge: In Bost v. Illinois Board of Elections, the court will decide whether Rep. Michael Bost (R-Ill.) and two of Trump's 2020 electors have legal standing to challenge Illinois' acceptance of ballots received after Election Day, so long as they were postmarked by then. The court is not directly examining the merits of the law, but Republicans have broadly looked to crack down on the practice.
Government contractor immunity: In The GEO Group v. Menocal, the court will decide if government contractors can immediately appeal a ruling denying them sovereign immunity from a lawsuit without waiting for the trial proceedings to conclude. The dispute arises from The GEO Group's operation of an immigration detention facility in Aurora, Colo.
Military injury lawsuit: In another case implicating government contractors, the court in Hencely v. Fluor Corporation will weigh reviving a former Army specialist's lawsuit against a defense contractor, which employed a suicide bomber who critically injured the specialist in Afghanistan. A lower court held the lawsuit was preempted by federal law.
The court also granted a fourth case we outlined the week prior:
4th Amendment's emergency exception: Law enforcement can get around the 4th Amendment's search warrant requirement if they believe an emergency is occurring inside a home. In Case v. Montana, the court will decide if police must have probable cause to believe an emergency is occurring or some lesser standard.
OUT: AR-15 bans (for now)
Though the court took up a series of new cases, its simultaneous refusal to take up two others has attracted just as much attention.
After considering challenges to Maryland's AR-15 ban and Rhode Island's high-capacity magazine ban at 15 consecutive conferences, the justices finally turned away the cases, Snope v. Brown and Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island.
For both petitions, the court fell one vote short of the four justices required to take up a case. Only Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch voted to do so.
They may have a fourth vote soon enough. In a separate statement, Justice Brett Kavanaugh told gun rights advocates to come back in a year or two.
'Additional petitions for certiorari will likely be before this Court shortly and, in my view, this Court should and presumably will address the AR–15 issue soon, in the next Term or two,' Kavanaugh wrote.
Separately, the court also turned away a petition we highlighted in April, Nicholson v. W.L. York, Inc., in which adult entertainer Chanel Nicholson sought to revive her racial discrimination lawsuit against various Houston-area clubs she claims barred her from entering because she is Black. A lower court ruled she waited too long to file her suit.
We now know why the court has been sitting on the case: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, was cooking up a dissent.
Jackson wrote that the lower decision 'flouts' the Supreme Court's clear precedent, saying she would've summarily reversed the ruling and allowed Nicholson's suit to proceed.
MAYBE: Monopolies
The court asked the Justice Department to weigh in on whether the justices should take up three pending petitions, known as a 'call for the views of the solicitor general,' or CVSG.
The justices often go with the solicitor general's recommendation, so these are ones to watch.
Antitrust: Duke Energy, which sells electricity in North Carolina, is attempting to reverse a ruling that revived NTE's antitrust suit against the company. In Duke Energy Carolinas LLC v. NTE Carolinas II LLC, a lower court ruled a company's series of independently lawful acts can together add up to an illegal monopoly under the Sherman Act.
Chabad's suit against Russia: In Agudas Chasidei Chabad of United States v. Russian Federation, Chabad is appealing a lower ruling granting the Russian government immunity from a lawsuit over the group's sacred religious library that ended up in Soviet hands at the end of the Holocaust. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) generally protects foreign states from being hauled into U.S. courts, but Chabad believes its case falls under an exception.
Hertz's bankruptcy: Car-rental company Hertz, which filed for bankruptcy after COVID-19 curtailed travel spending, is appealing a ruling that it must pay $272 million in interest to bondholders. They were paid off early, but the bondholders believe they were underpaid now that Hertz has emerged from bankruptcy as a solvent company. Hertz argues the Bankruptcy Code doesn't allow the payment, but a lower court ruled it is overrided by a common law rule dating back to before the code's existence.
The court has relisted five petitions for the first time.
RNC's fight over PA ballots: The Republican National Committee (RNC) is seeking to overturn a ruling providing Pennsylvania voters with an in-person, do-over option when they return a defective mail ballot. The justices declined to intervene on an emergency basis just before the 2024 election, but the case, RNC v. Genser, has now arrived at their normal docket. It's the latest case to implicate the so-called independent state legislature theory.
Oil lawsuit: In Chevron USA. v. Palequemines Parish, a group of energy companies that includes Chevron and Exxon Mobil are seeking to move a lawsuit filed by Louisiana parishes to federal court under what is known as the federal officer removal statute. The parishes won $745 million in state court earlier this year by holding the companies liable for production of crude oil along the Louisiana coast during World War II.
Personal jurisdiction: Federal procedure authorizes federal courts to wipe a void judgment, but the motion 'must be made within a reasonable time.' In Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton, a dispute arising from an automotive company's bankruptcy, the court is asked to review whether the timeliness requirement applies when the court didn't have personal jurisdiction, meaning its power to make rulings concerning a party.
Compassionate release, again (x2): Last week, we discussed the court taking up what discretion judges have in granting compassionate release, which allows courts to reduce a defendant's sentence for 'extraordinary and compelling reasons.' The court has relisted two new defendants' petitions, Rutherford v. United States and Carter v. United States, that concern whether judges may consider sentencing disparities created by the First Step Act, the major criminal justice reform law passed in 2018. The Justice Department is backing both defendants, telling the court they should take up Carter and hold Rutherford until they reach a decision.
Catch Up
5 docket updates you need to know from the last week.
Tariffs invalidated: The U.S. Court of International Trade and a federal judge in Washington, D.C., blocked the bulk of Trump's tariffs as unlawful. Neither ruling is currently in effect as the cases quickly head to the appeals courts.
Environmental reviews narrowed: The Supreme Court in an 8-0 opinion narrowed the scope of environmental reviews required under the National Environmental Policy Act. Read more from our colleague Rachel Frazin.
Parole revoked: The Supreme Court in an emergency ruling allowed the Trump administration to revoke humanitarian parole the Biden administration extended to 532,000 migrants from four Latin American countries.
RIFs boomerang at SCOTUS: The Trump administration filed a new emergency application at the Supreme Court seeking to resume mass layoffs across the federal government. The justices refused to act at an earlier stage of the case by sitting on a previous request from the administration until it became moot.
CFPB lawsuit dropped: Baltimore dropped its lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's efforts to defund the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
In other news…
Europe steps up: As the Trump administration looks to downsize the U.S. Agency for Global Media, which funds Voice of America and other media groups, new court filings reveal the European Union (EU) is working on filling the gaps in funding to Radio Free Europe. The EU announced an intent to provide $6.2 million.
Menendez pardon watch: Former Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), who is set to report to prison in less than two weeks for his bribery conviction, in two series of posts on X accused former President Obama of weaponizing the Justice Department when it brought an earlier indictment against Menendez that ended in a mistrial. His comments came as Trump issued a flurry of pardons and expressed a willingness to do so for anyone who 'was mistreated' whether they 'like me or dislike me.'
Rubbing salt in the wound: According to a new lawsuit filed by a group of fired Department of Health and Human Services workers, a young man in business attire shouted, 'This is DOGE and this is your Last Supper!' at one employee as she was leaving work. The next morning, the employee received her layoff notice.
Don't be surprised if additional hearings are scheduled throughout the week. But here's what we're watching for now:
Today
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will hold oral arguments in an appeal of Trump's executive order limiting birthright citizenship.
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a challenge by various local Planned Parenthood arms to the Department of Health and Human Services's efforts to upend the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is set to hold a hearing considering some of Trump's second term judicial nominees.
Thursday
The Supreme Court will announce opinions.
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., is set to hold a second preliminary injunction hearing in the Project of Government Oversight's lawsuit against Trump and DOGE over its recordkeeping practices.
Friday
Shane Lamond, the ex-D.C. police lieutenant convicted of warning Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio he was being investigated and later lying about their communication, is set to be sentenced.
A federal judge in Boston is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in 19 Democratic state attorneys general's challenge to Trump's executive order on elections.
A Maryland judge is set to hold a summary judgment hearing in a challenge by three Biden appointees to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) who were fired by Trump.
Monday
The Supreme Court will announce orders.
The D.C. Bar Association is expected to announce the results of its election.
The Wall Street Journal's Erin Mulvaney, Emily Glazer, C. Ryan Barber and Josh Dawsey: The Law Firms That Appeased Trump—and Angered Their Clients
The Detroit News's Robert Snell and Craig Mauger: Chinese student who voted in Michigan election fled U.S., feds say
CNN's Kristen Holmes and John Fritze: Trump privately complains about Amy Coney Barrett and other Supreme Court justices he nominated
Heatmap's Robinson Meyer: The Supreme Court Just Started a Permitting Revolution
Michael Cohen, Warren Ballentine, Jesse Jackson Jr., Michael Rothenberg and Dr. Michael Jones in The Hill: With new questions about his acuity, Biden's pardon choices should be revisited
We'll be back next Wednesday with additional reporting and insights. In the meantime, keep up with our coverage here.
Questions? Tips? Love letters, hate mail, pet pics?
Email us: elee@thehill.com and zschonfeld@thehill.com.
On Signal: @elee.03 and @zachschonfeld.48.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Black America Web

35 minutes ago

• Black America Web

Trump Complains About Juneteenth, X Shows Off His Hypocrisy

Source: Sean Rayford / Getty President Donald Trump's complaint about federal holidays on Juneteenth prompted social media to show his past support for it while campaigning. As the nation observed Juneteenth on Thursday (June 19), the most noticable action — or inaction — was in the federal government save for a Truth Social post by President Donald Trump. He stated that he would get rid of 'non-working holidays', complaining that 'Soon we'll end up having a holiday for every once working day of the year,' without acknowledging Juneteenth by name, concluding 'It must change if we are going to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!' Juneteenth observes June 19th, 1865, the day when those Black Americans enslaved in Galveston, Texas were informed by a Union Army general that the Civil War had ended and that they had been freed by President Abraham Lincoln's signing of the Emancipation Proclamation two and a half years before. It was made a federal holiday by President Joe Biden in 2021, and it cannot be revoked without an act of Congress. Trump's stance was echoed by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt during her press conference. After answering a question concerning a potential proclamation for Juneteenth, she replied: 'I'm not tracking his signature on a proclamation today. I want to thank all of you for showing up to work. We are certainly here.' Trump had signed up to eleven proclamations in the past week alone for Father's Day, Flag Day as well as the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army, which are not among the 11 annual federal holidays. According to reporting from The Guardian, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth requested a 'passive approach to Juneteenth messaging' in an email sent out earlier this week. The news comes after Hegseth has obeyed orders from Trump to carry out his elimination of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), seen in renaming military installations like Fort Bragg and warships such as one named after the slain Civil Rights leader Medgar Evers. But Trump's social media post was swiftly called out by many on social media who noted that during his presidential campaign in 2020, he promoted Juneteenth becoming a federal holiday as part of his 'Platinum Plan' geared towards earning votes among the Black community. Former President Joe Biden spent the day on Galveston Island, attending the Juneteenth Emancipation March and Service held at Reedy Chapel AME, where he also paid homage to the late Texas Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee who worked to make Juneteenth a federal holiday. Trump Complains About Juneteenth, X Shows Off His Hypocrisy was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE

42 minutes ago

How the US bombarded Iranian nuclear sites without detection

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates -- It was an unprecedented attack years in the making, with some last-minute misdirection meant to give the operation a powerful element of surprise. U.S. pilots dropped 30,000-pound bombs early Sunday on two key underground uranium enrichment plants in Iran, delivering what American military leaders believe is a knockout blow to a nuclear program that Israel views as an existential threat and has been pummeling for more than a week. American sailors bolstered the surprise mission by firing dozens of cruise missiles from a submarine toward at least one other site. Dubbed Operation Midnight Hammer, U.S. officials say the plan was characterized by a 'precision strike' that 'devastated the Iranian nuclear program,' even as they acknowledged an assessment was ongoing. For its part, Iran denied that any significant damage had been done, and the Islamic Republic pledged to retaliate. Taking off from the U.S. heartland, B-2 stealth bombers delivered a total of 420,000 pounds of explosives, aided by an armada of refueling tankers and fighter jets — some of which launched their own weapons. U.S. officials said Iran neither detected the inbound fusillade, nor mustered a shot at the stealthy American jets. The operation relied on a series of deceptive tactics and decoys to maintain the secrecy, U.S. officials said hours after the attack, which was preceded by nine days of Israeli attacks that debilitated Iran's military leadership and air defenses. Even before the planes took off, elements of misdirection were already in play. After setting parts of the plan in motion, Trump publicly announced Thursday that he'd make a decision within two weeks on whether to strike Iran — ostensibly to allow additional time for negotiations, but in actuality masking the impending attack. One group of B-2 stealth bombers traveled west from Missouri on Saturday as decoys, drawing the attention of amateur plane spotters, government officials and some media as they headed toward a U.S. air base in the Pacific. At the same time, seven other B-2s carrying two 'bunker buster' bombs apiece flew eastward, keeping communications to a minimum so as not to draw any attention. Air Force Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at Sunday's briefing that it was all "part of a plan to maintain tactical surprise' and that only 'an extremely small number of planners and key leaders' knew about it in Washington and Florida, where U.S. Central Command is based. After 18 hours of furtive flying that required aerial refueling, the armed B-2 Spirit bombers, each with two crew members, arrived on time and without detection in the Eastern Mediterranean, from where they launched their attack runs. Before crossing into Iran, the B-2s were escorted by stealthy U.S. fighter jets and reconnaissance aircraft. A graphic released by the Pentagon showed the flight route as passing over Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. It was unclear whether those countries were notified of the U.S. overflight in advance. Most U.S. lawmakers were also kept in the dark, with some Republicans saying they were provided a brief heads-up by the White House before the strike. 'Our B-2s went in and out and back without the world knowing at all,' Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth told reporters Sunday. About an hour before the B-2s entered Iran, Caine said that a U.S. submarine in the region launched more than two dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles against key targets, including a site in Isfahan where uranium is prepared for enrichment. As the U.S. bombers approached their targets, they watched out for Iranian fighter jets and surface-to-air missiles, but encountered none. At 6:40 p.m. in Washington and 2:10 a.m. in Tehran, the first B-2 bomber dropped its pair of GBU-57 massive ordnance penetrators on the deeply buried Fordo uranium enrichment plant. It was the first time these so-called 'bunker busters' had ever been used in combat. Each 30,000-pound bomb is designed to burrow into the ground before detonating a massive warhead. The Fordo site received the bulk of the bombardment, though a couple of the enormous bombs were also dropped on a uranium enrichment site at Natanz. The U.S. bombs fell for about half an hour, with cruise missiles fired from submarines being the last American weapons to hit their targets, which included a third nuclear site at Isfahan, Caine said. Both Iran and the U.N. nuclear watchdog said there were no immediate signs of radioactive contamination around the sites. The mission included: — 75 precision-guided weapons: these included 14 GBU-57 'bunker buster' bombs deployed by the seven B-2 Spirit stealth bombers, and more than two-dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from a U.S. submarine. — 125 aircraft, including the B-2 bombers, fighter jets and refueling planes. Hegseth said Sunday that 'our boys in those bombers are on their way home right now.' But a U.S. official said one woman was among those piloting the B-2 bombers. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about the mission publicly. Caine said the use of the bunker-buster bombs made the mission historic, as did other elements. 'This was the largest B-2 operational strike in U.S. history, and the second longest B-2 mission ever flown, exceeded only by those in the days following 9/11," he told reporters Sunday. ___

New York Times

an hour ago

• New York Times

Live Updates: Fears Run High as Iran Weighs Response to U.S. Strikes

Demonstrators hold signs against the U.S. strikes against Iran in Washington outside the White House on Sunday. Before he ordered strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, President Trump did not seek permission from Congress, to which the U.S. Constitution grants the sole power to declare war. Many Democrats and even some Republicans say that the attack was tantamount to a declaration of war and that Mr. Trump acted illegally. Several Trump aides say they disagree, calling the strike a limited action aimed solely at Iran's nuclear capabilities that does not meet the definition of war. 'This is not a war against Iran,' Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Fox News on Sunday. Vice President JD Vance argued that Mr. Trump had 'clear authority to act to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.' However, later on Sunday, Mr. Trump wrote online that his military aims could be much more expansive: 'If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' Criticisms of the attack, which came less than two weeks after Israel began its bombing campaign against Iran, include Mr. Trump not giving American policymakers, lawmakers and the public enough time to debate a role in a conflict that experts warn could grow quickly if Iran retaliates. The furor over the sudden strikes follows years of bipartisan efforts in Congress to try to place greater limits on a president's ability to order military action, efforts that arose because of disastrous American wars in the Middle East and Central Asia. So is the United States at war with Iran? And did Mr. Trump have the authority to order his attack without consulting Congress? What does the U.S. Constitution say about war? Image A demonstrator holds a shredded copy of the Constitution of the United States on Sunday. Credit... Eric Lee for The New York Times Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution assigns Congress dozens of powers like collecting taxes and creating post offices, as well as the power to 'declare war' and to 'raise and support armies.' The Constitution's framers considered that clause a crucial check on presidential power, according to an essay by the law professors Michael D. Ramsey and Stephen I. Vladeck for the National Constitution Center. Early in American history, Congress approved even limited conflicts, including frontier clashes with Native American tribes. But the question is complicated by Article II of the Constitution, which delineates the powers of the president, and which designates the U.S. leader as the 'commander in chief' of the U.S. military. Presidents of both parties, relying heavily on legal opinions written by executive-branch lawyers, have cited that language to justify military action without congressional involvement. Congress tried asserting itself with the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which says the American president must 'consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.' But presidents have repeatedly disregarded that language or argued for a narrow definition of the 'introduction' of forces. Congress has done little to enforce the resolution. What are members of Congress saying about the U.S. strikes? Image President Trump walking across the South Lawn as he returned to the White House on Sunday. Credit... Anna Rose Layden for The New York Times Democrats have almost uniformly criticized Mr. Trump for acting without legislative consent, and a few Republicans have as well. 'His actions are a clear violation of our Constitution — ignoring the requirement that only the Congress has the authority to declare war,' Senator Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland, said in a statement echoed by many of his colleagues. Representative Thomas Massie, Republican of Kentucky, told CBS News that there was no 'imminent threat to the United States' from Iran. Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia, said on the same CBS program that Congress must act this week to assert a role in any further U.S. military action. 'Would we think it was war if Iran bombed a U.S. nuclear facility? Of course we would,' Mr. Kaine said. 'This is the U.S. jumping into a war of choice at Donald Trump's urging, without any compelling national security interests for the United States to act in this way, particularly without a debate and vote in Congress.' Some Democrats say Mr. Trump has already gone unforgivably far. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York called on Saturday night for Mr. Trump's impeachment. Hawkish Republicans rejected such talk. 'He had all the authority he needs under the Constitution,' Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told NBC News on Sunday. Mr. Graham cited Mr. Trump's power as commander in chief under Article II of the Constitution. 'Congress can declare war, or cut off funding. We can't be the commander in chief. You can't have 535 commander-in-chiefs,' Mr. Graham said, referring to the combined number of U.S. representatives and senators. 'If you don't like what the president does in terms of war, you can cut off the funding.' Mr. Graham noted that Congress has made formal war declarations in only five conflicts, and none since World War II. However, there has been a legal equivalent from Congress that President George W. Bush was the last American leader to successfully seek: an authorization for the use of military force, often called an A.U.M.F. What are legal scholars saying? Image Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi of Iran called the U.S. attack an 'outrageous, grave and unprecedented violation' of international law and of the United Nations charter. Credit... Khalil Hamra/Associated Press Several lawyers and scholars who have studied the international law of armed conflict say the United States is without a doubt at war with Iran for purposes of application of that law, and that Mr. Trump acted in violation of international conventions. 'The short answer is that this is, in my view, illegal under both international law and U.S. domestic law,' said Oona Hathaway, a professor of international law at Yale Law School who has worked at the Defense Department. Brian Finucane, a former lawyer at the State Department, agreed that Mr. Trump needed to ask Congress for authorization beforehand. He also said 'there is certainly a U.S. armed conflict with Iran, so the law of war applies.' On Sunday, Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, called the U.S. attack an 'outrageous, grave and unprecedented violation' of international law and of the United Nations charter, which forbids U.N. members from violating the sovereignty of other members. Mr. Araghchi did not specifically say that his country is now at war with America. Mr. Finucane also said the United States had violated the U.N. charter. Ryan Goodman, a law professor at New York University who has also worked at the Defense Department, said 'one important matter for both domestic law and especially international law is the issue of 'imminence.'' The Trump administration is justifying the U.S. attack by saying Iran's development of a nuclear weapon was imminent, Mr. Goodman noted. But 'the law would require that the attack would be imminent,' he said, and 'it is very hard to see how the administration can meet that test under even the most charitable legal assessment.' Even if one were to focus on the question of a nuclear bomb, U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that Iran had not yet decided to make such a weapon, even though it had developed a large stockpile of the enriched uranium necessary for doing so. How often have presidents sought congressional approval for war? Image The furor over the sudden strikes also follows years of bipartisan efforts in Congress to try to place greater limits on a president's ability to order military action, efforts that arose because of disastrous American wars in the Middle East and Central Asia. Credit... Eric Lee/The New York Times In the decades since Congress declared war on Japan and Germany in 1941, U.S. presidents have repeatedly joined or started major conflicts without congressional consent. President Harry S. Truman sent U.S. forces into Korea. President Ronald Reagan ordered military action in Libya, Grenada and Lebanon; President George H.W. Bush invaded Panama; President Bill Clinton ordered the bombing of mostly Serbian targets in Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War; President Barack Obama joined a 2011 NATO bombing campaign against the government of Muammar Qaddafi in Libya and led a military campaign against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. Mr. Obama broke with this trend in September 2013 when he decided against launching a planned strike against Syria without first seeking congressional authorization. The strike was unpopular in Congress, which never held a vote, and Mr. Obama did not act. President George W. Bush won separate congressional authorizations for the use of military force against Afghanistan and Iraq before ordering invasions of those countries in 2001 and 2003. In the years since the Al Qaeda attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, several presidents have also ordered countless airstrikes and special operations raids on foreign soil to kill accused terrorists. Those have largely relied on broad interpretations of the two authorizations for the use of military force that Congress granted the executive branch for the so-called war on terror. Emma Ashford, a scholar of U.S. foreign policy at the Stimson Center, said that in the post-9/11 wars, 'some presidents have largely stopped asking permission at all.' In January 2020, Mr. Trump chose not to consult Congress before ordering an airstrike that killed a senior Iranian military commander, Qassim Suleimani, while he was visiting Iraq. Many members of Congress called that a clear act of war that was likely to begin wider hostilities. Iran responded by firing 27 missiles at U.S. forces in Iraq, inflicting traumatic brain injuries on about 100 U.S. troops. But the conflict did not expand further. Last year, President Joseph R. Biden Jr. ordered U.S. airstrikes against the Houthi militia in Yemen without getting congressional permission, and Mr. Trump did the same this year. Advances in military technology, including drones and precision-guided munitions, have allowed presidents to take action with minimal initial risk to U.S. forces. Military officials say that Saturday's strike in Iran, carried out by B-2 stealth bombers, encountered no resistance. But critics say the action invites Iranian retaliation that could escalate into full-scale war. What happens next Image Advances in military technology, including drones and precision-guided munitions, have allowed presidents to take action with minimal initial risk to U.S. forces. Credit... Eric Lee for The New York Times G.O.P. leaders in the House and Senate have signaled support for the strike, but Democrats and a few Republicans are demanding that Congress approve any further military action. Mr. Kaine, who serves on the committees on armed services and foreign relations, introduced a Senate resolution last week requiring that Mr. Trump get explicit congressional approval before taking military action against Iran. Mr. Kaine on Sunday said the measure was still relevant and that he hoped it would come to a vote this week. Mr. Massie, the Kentucky Republican, introduced a similar war powers resolution last week in the House with Ro Khanna, Democrat of California. 'When two countries are bombing each other daily in a hot war, and a third country joins the bombing, that's an act of war,' Mr. Massie wrote on social media on Sunday. Mr. Massie said he was 'amazed at the mental gymnastics' Mr. Trump's defenders have employed to argue the United States was not entering a war by attacking Iranian nuclear facilities. Megan Mineiro contributed reporting.