Latest news with #Democratic-selected
Observer
24-05-2025
- Politics
- Observer
Judges keep calling Trump's actions illegal
President Donald Trump has suffered a string of court losses in recent days as federal judges ruled that his administration broke the law on a number of matters, including firing officials, shutting down organizations and deporting migrants. But if the decisions all point in the same direction — Trump and his team have acted lawlessly in egregious ways, judges emphatically said — the real-world consequences may vary. That is because even assuming all those rulings were to be upheld on appeal, some of Trump's actions would be easier to undo than others. And the slow pace of litigation means the judiciary is often many steps behind and in some cases unable to catch up. Still, courts serve as a rare check on Trump, who has steamrolled constraints inside the executive branch, enjoys broad immunity for his official acts because of a 2024 Supreme Court ruling and, as a matter of political reality, has little reason to fear impeachment or even serious oversight inquiries by the Republican-controlled Congress. The Trump administration has responded, as it often does to court losses, by lobbing insults — calling one such ruling a 'rogue judge's attempt to impede on the separation of powers' and another the act of 'an unelected judge with a political ax to grind.' In an interview with New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, Vice President JD Vance declared, 'I know this is inflammatory, but I think you are seeing an effort by the courts to quite literally overturn the will of the American people.' The denunciations make clear that appeals are inevitable, so the story is not yet over. But among the actions struck down by district court judges this week, the simplest to undo is likely Trump's dismissal, without cause, of three Democratic-selected members of an independent watchdog agency that scrutinises counter-terrorism policies and actions, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. President Donald Trump signs executive orders in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington. On Wednesday, Judge Reggie B. Walton of the US District Court in Washington ruled that Trump had broken the law in doing so and ordered the reinstatement of two members who had sued. Trump's move left the board with only one member, largely paralysing the agency because a quorum of three is necessary for it to act. When its employees wrote up an examination of face scanners in airports this month, they released it as an informal staff report rather than as a statutorily authorised board report that is accompanied by member recommendations and submitted to Congress. They cannot start new investigations. The administration has not said whether it will appeal, but it has made clear it wants the Supreme Court to expand a president's authority to fire the leaders of independent agencies. On Thursday, the court permitted Trump, for now, to remove leaders of two other such agencies. Still, Walton's reasoning suggested that even if the Supreme Court bolsters Trump's power to control some of these agencies, the independent structure of the privacy board might survive since it is an investigative body that does not exercise much, if any, 'executive power,' like making and enforcing rules. And if the two oversight board members who sued, Travis LeBlanc and Edward Felten, can return to their offices, collect back pay and finish their terms, there will have been relatively little long-term damage done. A middle ground, in terms of what it would take to undo the administration's handiwork, is presented by two rulings against Trump this week concerning his efforts to unilaterally shut down parts of the government, or its activities, that were established and funded by Congress. On Monday, Judge Beryl A. Howell of US District Court in Washington ruled that the administration's takeover of the US Institute of Peace, a non-profit think tank that Congress established to seek diplomatic solutions to global conflicts, was unlawful and a 'gross usurpation of power.' She ordered the reinstatement of top officials ousted by the White House and nullified the transfer of the institute's building to the General Services Administration, which manages the federal real estate portfolio. A separate lawsuit remains pending on behalf of the institute's workforce. The administration terminated most of the institute's hundreds of workers in the United States and abroad. But the Trump administration filed its notice of appeal on Wednesday and sought to temporarily block Howell's order. If there is a stay until the Supreme Court weighs in, even a victory and a similar order to reinstate its broader workforce would not make it straightforward for the institute to simply pick back up. For one, its former employees may not be willing or able to return. Some may have found other jobs in the interim. For another, Republican lawmakers may decide against allocating funding for it in next year's budget, in which case Trump's move, even if lawless, will end up as a mere jump-start.
Boston Globe
24-05-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Judges keep calling Trump's actions illegal, but undoing them is hard
Still, courts serve as a rare check on Trump, who has steamrolled constraints inside the executive branch, enjoys broad immunity for his official acts because of a 2024 Supreme Court ruling and, as a matter of political reality, has little reason to fear impeachment or even serious oversight inquiries by the Republican-controlled Congress. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The Trump administration has responded, as it often does to court losses, by lobbing insults -- calling one such ruling a 'rogue judge's attempt to impede on the separation of powers' and another the act of 'an unelected judge with a political ax to grind.' In an interview with New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, Vice President JD Vance declared, 'I know this is inflammatory, but I think you are seeing an effort by the courts to quite literally overturn the will of the American people.' Advertisement The denunciations make clear that appeals are inevitable, so the story is not yet over. Advertisement But among the actions struck down by district court judges this week, the simplest to undo is likely Trump's dismissal, without cause, of three Democratic-selected members of an independent watchdog agency that scrutinizes counterterrorism policies and actions, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. On Wednesday, Judge Reggie B. Walton of the U.S. District Court in Washington ruled that Trump had broken the law in doing so and ordered the reinstatement of two members who had sued. Trump's move left the board with only one member, largely paralyzing the agency because a quorum of three is necessary for it to act. When its employees wrote up an examination of face scanners in airports this month, they released it as an informal staff report rather than as a statutorily authorized board report that is accompanied by member recommendations and submitted to Congress. They cannot start new investigations. The administration has not said whether it will appeal, but it has made clear it wants the Supreme Court to expand a president's authority to fire the leaders of independent agencies. On Thursday, the court permitted Trump, for now, to remove leaders of two other such agencies. Still, Walton's reasoning suggested that even if the Supreme Court bolsters Trump's power to control some of these agencies, the independent structure of the privacy board might survive since it is an investigative body that does not exercise much, if any, 'executive power,' like making and enforcing rules. And if the two oversight board members who sued, Travis LeBlanc and Edward Felten, can return to their offices, collect back pay and finish their terms, there will have been relatively little long-term damage done. Advertisement A middle ground, in terms of what it would take to undo the administration's handiwork, is presented by two rulings against Trump this week concerning his efforts to unilaterally shut down parts of the government, or its activities, that were established and funded by Congress. On Monday, Judge Beryl A. Howell of U.S. District Court in Washington ruled that the administration's takeover of the U.S. Institute of Peace, a nonprofit think tank that Congress established to seek diplomatic solutions to global conflicts, was unlawful and a 'gross usurpation of power.' She ordered the reinstatement of top officials ousted by the White House and nullified the transfer of the institute's building to the General Services Administration, which manages the federal real estate portfolio. A separate lawsuit remains pending on behalf of the institute's workforce. The administration terminated most of the institute's hundreds of workers in the United States and abroad. George Foote, a former lawyer for the independent think tank who helped bring the lawsuit, said this week that former staff members had been working in the hope that the institute would be restored. He added, 'The culture is intact, and the management and staff are ready to go back to work.' But the Trump administration filed its notice of appeal Wednesday and sought to temporarily block Howell's order. If there is a stay until the Supreme Court weighs in, even a victory and a similar order to reinstate its broader workforce would not make it straightforward for the institute to simply pick back up. For one, its former employees may not be willing or able to return. Some may have found other jobs in the interim. For another, Republican lawmakers may decide against allocating funding for it in next year's budget, in which case Trump's move, even if lawless, will end up as a mere jump-start. Advertisement A ruling Thursday, ordering the Trump administration to halt and reverse Trump's effort to dismantle the Education Department, raises similar complexities. Judge Myong J. Joun of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction ordering officials to reinstate thousands of fired employees. Joun found that the administration had likely broken multiple laws that require the department to perform various functions, as well as a mandate in the Department of Education Organization Act 'that the department itself must exist -- not just in name only.' But the administration has also proposed huge cuts in next year's budget -- meaning that employees considering whether to return may see little long-term future there regardless. Perhaps the most fraught action against the Trump administration this week came from Judge Brian E. Murphy of the U.S. District Court in Boston. On Wednesday, he declared that the administration had violated an order he issued last month barring the deportation of migrants to countries not their own without first giving them sufficient time to object. The issue centered on several men who were deported after being told they were being sent to South Sudan, a violence-plagued country in Africa where most of them are not from. The flight apparently landed in the East African nation of Djibouti, where there is a U.S. military base. Murphy said the Homeland Security Department's actions had 'unquestionably' violated his earlier order, and suggested that he may later find officials in contempt. But the Republican-dominated Congress is also considering reducing the power of judges to hold people in contempt as part of the budget bill. And now that the deportees are out of the United States, it will be difficult to give them the due process the judge said they were denied. Advertisement In an order after the hearing, Murphy said the migrants must be given access to a lawyer and a chance to challenge wherever the government plans to drop them off, including housing for 15 days as that process unfolds. But when he floated that possibility during the hearing, Trina Realmuto, a lawyer for the detainees, called it 'a legal and logistical nightmare.' Previous deportations that judges have deemed illegal have proved difficult to unwind. The Trump administration has to date successfully resisted the most obvious remedy: bringing noncitizens back to the United States for regular deportation proceedings. In the most high-profile example, the administration mistakenly repatriated a Salvadoran man who had been living in Maryland despite an order that barred sending him there. But even though the Supreme Court has ordered the government to 'facilitate' the man's return, the Trump administration has said it cannot do so. This article originally appeared in
Straits Times
24-05-2025
- Politics
- Straits Times
US judges keep calling Trump's actions illegal, but undoing them is hard
US President Donald Trump has suffered a string of court losses in recent days as federal judges ruled that his administration broke the law on a number of matters. PHOTO: AFP WASHINGTON – US President Donald Trump has suffered a string of court losses in recent days as federal judges ruled that his administration broke the law on a number of matters, including firing officials, shutting down organisations and deporting migrants. But if the decisions all point in the same direction - Mr Trump and his team have acted lawlessly in egregious ways, judges emphatically said - the real-world consequences may vary. That is because even assuming all those rulings were to be upheld on appeal, some of Mr Trump's actions would be easier to undo than others. And the slow pace of litigation means the judiciary is often many steps behind and in some cases unable to catch up. Still, courts serve as a rare check on Mr Trump, who has steam rolled constraints inside the executive branch, enjoys broad immunity for his official acts because of a 2024 Supreme Court ruling and, as a matter of political reality, has little reason to fear impeachment or even serious oversight inquiries by the Republican-controlled Congress. The Trump administration has responded, as it often does to court losses, by lobbing insults - calling one such ruling a 'rogue judge's attempt to impede on the separation of powers' and another the act of 'an unelected judge with a political axe to grind'. In an interview with New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, Vice-President J.D. Vance declared: 'I know this is inflammatory, but I think you are seeing an effort by the courts to quite literally overturn the will of the American people.' The denunciations make clear that appeals are inevitable, so the story is not yet over. But among the actions struck down by district court judges this week, the simplest to undo is likely Mr Trump's dismissal, without cause, of three Democratic-selected members of an independent watchdog agency that scrutinises counterterrorism policies and actions, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. On May 21, Judge Reggie B. Walton of the US District Court in Washington ruled that Mr Trump had broken the law in doing so and ordered the reinstatement of two members who had sued. Mr Trump's move left the board with only one member, largely paralysing the agency because a quorum of three is necessary for it to act. When its employees wrote up an examination of face scanners in airports in May, they released it as an informal staff report rather than as a statutorily authorised board report that is accompanied by member recommendations and submitted to Congress. They cannot start new investigations. The administration has not said whether it will appeal, but it has made clear it wants the Supreme Court to expand a president's authority to fire the leaders of independent agencies. On May 22, the court permitted Mr Trump, for now, to remove leaders of two other such agencies. Still, Judge Walton's reasoning suggested that even if the Supreme Court bolsters Mr Trump's power to control some of these agencies, the independent structure of the privacy board might survive since it is an investigative body that does not exercise much, if any, 'executive power', like making and enforcing rules. And if the two oversight board members who sued, Travis LeBlanc and Edward Felten, can return to their offices, collect back pay and finish their terms, there will have been relatively little long-term damage done. A middle ground, in terms of what it would take to undo the administration's handiwork, is presented by two rulings against Mr Trump this week concerning his efforts to unilaterally shut down parts of the government, or its activities, that were established and funded by Congress. On May 19, Judge Beryl A. Howell of US District Court in Washington ruled that the administration's takeover of the US Institute of Peace, a nonprofit think tank that Congress established to seek diplomatic solutions to global conflicts, was unlawful and a 'gross usurpation of power'. She ordered the reinstatement of top officials ousted by the White House and nullified the transfer of the institute's building to the General Services Administration, which manages the federal real estate portfolio. A separate lawsuit remains pending on behalf of the institute's workforce. The administration terminated most of the institute's hundreds of workers in the United States and abroad. But the Trump administration filed its notice of appeal on May 21 and sought to temporarily block Judge Howell's order. If there is a stay until the Supreme Court weighs in, even a victory and a similar order to reinstate its broader workforce would not make it straightforward for the institute to simply pick back up. For one, its former employees may not be willing or able to return. Some may have found other jobs in the interim. For another, Republican lawmakers may decide against allocating funding for it in next year's budget, in which case Trump's move, even if lawless, will end up as a mere jump-start. A ruling on May 22, ordering the Trump administration to halt and reverse Mr Trump's effort to dismantle the Education Department, raises similar complexities. Judge Myong J. Joun of the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction ordering officials to reinstate thousands of fired employees. Judge Joun found that the administration had likely broken multiple laws that require the department to perform various functions, as well as a mandate in the Department of Education Organisation Act 'that the department itself must exist – not just in name only'. But the administration has also proposed huge cuts in next year's budget – meaning that employees considering whether to return may see little long-term future there regardless. Perhaps the most fraught action against the Trump administration this week came from Judge Brian E. Murphy of the US District Court in Boston. On May 21, he declared that the administration had violated an order he issued in April barring the deportation of migrants to countries not their own without first giving them sufficient time to object. The issue centred on several men who were deported after being told they were being sent to South Sudan, a violence-plagued country in Africa where most of them are not from. The flight apparently landed in the East African nation of Djibouti, where there is a US military base. Judge Murphy said the Homeland Security Department's actions had 'unquestionably' violated his earlier order, and suggested that he may later find officials in contempt. But the Republican-dominated Congress is also considering reducing the power of judges to hold people in contempt as part of the budget bill. And now that the deportees are out of the United States, it will be difficult to give them the due process the judge said they were denied. NYTIMES Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Wednesday's Mini-Report, 5.21.25
Today's edition of quick hits. * Just when it seemed our retirement accounts had recovered, this happened: 'Fears of a global government borrowing glut — likely to be compounded by the GOP's spending and tax-cuts bill — helped fuel an unusually weak auction for U.S. government bonds that sent markets into a tailspin Wednesday. The broad S&P 500 fell 1.6%, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average declined more than 800 points, or 2%. The tech-heavy Nasdaq was off 1.4%.' * Given a series of events such as these, won't judges eventually have to start holding some officials in contempt? 'After a deportation flight with eight migrants left Texas reportedly intended for South Sudan this week, a federal judge on Wednesday ruled that the Trump administration had violated a previous order.' * Another rough day in court for the White House: 'A federal judge ruled on Wednesday that President Trump broke the law when he fired members of an independent civil liberties watchdog without cause in January, ordering the reinstatement of those challenging their removals in court. In a 71-page opinion, Judge Reggie B. Walton of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia said that Mr. Trump's dismissal of Democratic-selected members to the five-person Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board was illegal.' * The sanctions Trump keeps threatening, without any follow-through: 'Without waiting for Washington, the European Union and the U.K. announced a new raft of sanctions against Russia on today, less than 24 hours after Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin exchanged a friendly, if fruitless, phone call about ending the war in Ukraine.' * The judge in the Baraka case sure did seem displeased: 'A federal judge on Wednesday scolded federal prosecutors and announced he will dismiss trespassing charges against Newark Mayor Ras Baraka related to a standoff at a migrant detention center. Interim U.S. Attorney for New Jersey Alina Habba announced earlier this week she would drop charges against Baraka (but at the same time announced new charges against Rep. LaMonica McIver stemming from a scuffle during Baraka's arrest). Federal magistrate judge Andre Espinosa reprimanded the federal prosecutors for more than five minutes, calling the retraction of the charges 'embarrassing.'' * Remember when the United States used to help lead efforts like these? 'After three years of intensive negotiations, the World Health Organization on Tuesday adopted the world's first agreement on how to cooperate and respond to future pandemics — without the support of the United States.' * Five years after George Floyd's murder: 'The Justice Department moved Wednesday to drop police-accountability agreements with Minneapolis and Louisville, abandoning the Biden administration's attempt to reshape law enforcement in cities where high-profile killings by officers ignited widespread outrage.' * On Capitol Hill, surprises like these are uncommon: 'In a surprise move, the Republican-led Senate quickly passed the No Tax on Tips Act on Tuesday, giving its official stamp of approval to an idea that has gained traction since President Donald Trump campaigned on it last year.' * Speaking of developments in the Senate: 'Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, has put a hold on four nominees for the Environmental Protection Agency.' * It might be a while before the Sun-Times lives this one down: 'The Chicago Sun-Times newspaper is receiving major backlash after it printed an AI-generated 'summer reading list for 2025' Sunday that promoted several nonexistent book titles.' See you tomorrow. This article was originally published on
New York Times
24-02-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Two Members of Privacy Watchdog, Summarily Fired by Trump, File Lawsuit
Two former members of an independent civil liberties watchdog agency who were fired by President Trump sued the government on Monday, asking a court to declare their terminations illegal and reinstate them to their former positions. The lawsuit is the latest in a deluge of litigation arising from Mr. Trump's firings of officials as part of an assault on the basic structure of the federal government. The former officials, Travis LeBlanc and Edward W. Felten, were among three Democratic-selected members of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board whom Mr. Trump ousted on Jan. 27. He also dismissed a third member, Sharon Bradford Franklin, but she was due to depart two days later anyway and did not join the lawsuit. A fourth seat was already vacant, so the departures left the five-member board with only one member, Beth Williams, who had been chosen by Republicans. The removals paralyzed the agency by leaving it without enough members to take official actions like starting an investigative project or issuing a board report with a policy recommendation. In the opening weeks of his second term, Mr. Trump has been on a firing spree — violating statutes in which Congress set limits on when a president may remove certain types of officials. Many of those summary firings have led to lawsuits, apparently setting up test cases to see whether the Supreme Court will expand presidential power by striking the laws down as infringing on Mr. Trump's constitutional powers. Many of those cases, however, center on explicit limits Congress wrote into law that say presidents cannot fire particular types of officials at will, but only for a cause like misconduct. Such lawsuits include Mr. Trump's firings of members of the Merit Systems Protection Board and the National Labor Relations Board. The challenge on Monday will be more complicated because Congress did not explicitly write into a statute that board members of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board could be removed only for cause, even though the law creating the board declares that it is an 'independent' agency. But there has been a general understanding that all officials atop independent agencies are shielded by implicit protections that allow for removal only for cause. For example, the law for another independent agency, the Securities and Exchange Commission, also lacks such a clause, but in a 2010 case, the Supreme Court assumed, without actually deciding, that it nevertheless implicitly exists as a limit. Congress originally set up the privacy board for its members to serve at the president's 'pleasure,' but later revised the statute to remove that provision and make the board an 'independent agency.' The complaint argued that this change and other factors meant the court should interpret the law as barring arbitrary firings. 'Reading the statute to permit removal without cause would both contravene the statute's literal meaning and fundamentally undermine the scheme of agency independence that Congress deliberately designed,' the complaint said. Congress established the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board as an independent agency after the Sept. 11 attacks. Its job is to investigate national security activities that can intrude upon individual rights, like surveillance affecting Americans or the use of terrorism watch lists to subject people to extra screening in airport security lines. It has security clearances and subpoena power, and is set up to have five members, appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, who serve six-year terms and can stay on for another after that if no successor has been confirmed. Some members are picked by the president, and some are selected by congressional leaders of the other party.
