Connect with us

The Dictatorship

The Supreme Court showed it isn’t entirely on board with Trump’s plans

Published

on

The Supreme Court showed it isn’t entirely on board with Trump’s plans

Welcome back, Deadline: Legal Newsletter readers. When we left off last weekwe were waiting for the Supreme Court to weigh in on President Donald Trump’s foreign aid freeze. We were still waiting on Tuesday night, when Trump addressed Congress and then shook hands with the justices in attendance, ending the procession with Chief Justice John Roberts and telling the chief that he “won’t forget.”

Whatever the president meant by thatand whether or not the justices purposely waited until after the speech to rule on the freeze, they finally did so Wednesday morning. They split 5-4 against the administration in the most significant high court action yet in Trump’s second term. The majority — Roberts, Justice Amy Coney Barrett and the three Democratic appointees — declined to reverse a federal judge’s order that the government pay out certain congressionally approved funds, over dissent from four GOP appointees led by Justice Samuel Alitowho said he was “stunned” by the majority’s move.

What left Alito so dazed? Joined by Justices Clarence Thomas Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaughhe lamented his majority colleagues’ refusal to intervene against “a single district-court judge” making the government “pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars.”

To be clear, the money at issue was for already completed work — in other words, the government paying its bills. And recall that the judge whom Alito cast as being out of line, Joe Biden appointee Amir Alihad declined to hold Trump officials in contempt despite their apparent noncompliance with his temporary restraining order against the blanket freeze. Litigation continues before Ali in the case that could return to the justices, though a majority of them have shown they aren’t eager to jump in and save the administration — not yet, anyway.

The justices seemingly won’t be weighing in again on the other Trump 2.0 case that previously reached themregarding the president’s firing of independent watchdog agency head Hampton Dellinger. An appellate panel on Wednesday temporarily approved Trump’s bid to remove Dellinger from the Office of Special Counsel. But instead of further pressing his appeal, the Biden appointee said he’s dropping it. Though the appellate action against him was technically temporary, Dellinger said it meant the agency tasked with protecting whistleblowers “will be run by someone totally beholden” to Trump for months before the Supreme Court could resolve the appeal. He said he disagreed with the ruling but that he’d abide by it because “[t]hat’s what Americans do.”

Other legal challenges to Trump’s power are moving forward. Just this week, a trial judge ruled against the president in a big one that could also reach the high court. “An American President is not a king,” Barack Obama appointee Beryl Howell wrote Thursday, rejecting Trump’s bid to fire National Labor Relations Board member Gwynne Wilcox. The case’s fate could hinge on the vitality of a 1935 Supreme Court precedent called Humphrey’s Executor, which has upheld agency independence and is a Republican target that was deemed “ripe for revisiting” by Project 2025.

In the latest from the Trump DOJthe president’s top prosecutor for the nation’s capital received a constitutional law refresher course. Interim U.S. attorney And Martin’s lesson came in a letter from Georgetown Law School Dean William Treanor, in response to Martin’s threat that his office won’t hire from the school unless it halts all diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. The problem with that, Treanor explained in a letter Thursday, is that the First Amendment “guarantees that the government cannot direct what Georgetown and its faculty teach and how to teach it.”

And in the ongoing Eric Adams sagathe government has a tough legal position to maintain. The Democratic mayor recently asked U.S. District Judge Dale Ho to dismiss his corruption indictment with prejudice — meaning forever — which is different from what Trump DOJ lawyer Emil Bove had been pushing for. With briefs due to Ho on Friday ahead of a possible hearing next week, how might Bove seek to preserve the apparent quid-pro-quo of a without-prejudice dismissalwhich has already led to several DOJ prosecutors quitting instead of supporting what they seemingly saw as a corrupt move by the government?

Adams got some notable support for dismissal with prejudice, from the top conservative lawyer Judge Ho appointed to advise him on the matter in light of the prior lack of an adversarial relationship between Adams and the Trump DOJ. Paul Clementwho served as solicitor general during George W. Bush’s administration, recommended the permanent dismissal. In his brief on Friday, Clement wrote that a without-prejudice dismissal “creates a palpable sense that the prosecution outlined in the indictment and approved by a grand jury could be renewed, a prospect that hangs like the proverbial Sword of Damocles over the accused.” Clement said that prospect “is particularly problematic when it comes to the sensitive task of prosecuting public officials.”

Now we’ll see if Judge Ho wants to heed Clement’s advice.

Have any questions or comments for me? I’d love to hear from you! Please emaildeadlinelegal@nbcuni.comfor a chance to be featured in a future newsletter.

Jordan Rubin

Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro,” a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined BLN, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

Trump’s Education Department destruction is a cowardly betrayal

Published

on

Trump’s Education Department destruction is a cowardly betrayal

Many of America’s global competitors — and adversaries — are no doubt cheering President Donald Trump’s plan to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education. They know that countries who out-educate the rest of the world will out-compete it. And now brand new Education Secretary Linda McMahon and Trump want to neuter, if not completely shutter, the entity that helps give all children in the United States access to the great public school education they deserve. On Tuesday, the department announced plans to cut nearly half of its staff. McMahon says these catastrophic firings, alongside hundreds of so-called “buyouts,” are about “efficiency, accountability, and ensuring that resources are directed where they matter most: to students, parents, and teachers.” The reality is far more cowardly.

The president claims he wants the states to run education — but states and local school districts already operate schools and make curriculum decisions. Nobody wants that to stop. Similarly, nobody wants more red tape or unnecessary, inefficient bureaucracy. But here, too, there are ways to achieve “efficiency” without betraying the promises made to America’s children.

Nobody wants more red tape or unnecessary, inefficient bureaucracy.

The department in its modern form was establishedhed by Congress in 1979 to level up access to education, to help working families pay for college, to boost student achievement and to pave pathways to good middle-class jobs.

According to its 2025 fiscal year budget summarydepartment grants help close to 26 million children from poor families get extra support to reach their full potential.

It helps meet the individual needs of around 7.5 million children with disabilities. It provided tens of millions to help the over 5 million English learners in U.S. classrooms improve their proficiency and assimilate into our communities. And it provided nearly 9 million students with the financial aid they need to attend college or trade programs, including work-study programs.

Why would anyone allow Elon Musk to steal that money, which Congress appropriated for children, to pay for tax breaks for the rich and corporations?

Indeed, much of the department’s total annual budget helps Americans trying to secure a college education. Why does Trump want to make it even harder for the children of low-income and middle-class families to cover skyrocketing college and university costs?

A gutted department would mean fewer teachers, more crowded classrooms and increased mental health and behavioral challenges for students. We’d most likely see increased absenteeism and decreased graduation rates. Fewer students would be able to obtain the degrees or credentials they need for well-paying jobs, meaning more students would have to settle for low-wage work or simply drop out of the workforce. And many cities and states would have to increase school budgets to make up for these cuts, resulting in higher state and local taxes.

Instead, this move sends a clear message that, in Trump’s America, only kids from wealthy families are entitled to opportunity. How does that help make America great?

Of course, opportunity comes in many forms. The world is a complicated place, and we need to prepare students for an increasingly complicated workforce. And yet, just days after the president signed a proclamationdeclaring February “Career and Technical Education Month,” Career and Technical Education, or CTE, programs are on the chopping block.

Secretary McMahon and I agree that high school can’t just be college prep. We both back the engaged, hands-on learning that students receive through CTE. We both believe in the Swiss apprenticeship program I had the honor of visiting last month. In the United States and Switzerland, students graduate from CTE programs ranging from construction and plumbing to manufacturing and health care with the skills, credentials and real-world experiences they need to secure good jobs, often right in their backyards.

I taught in a CTE high school and saw firsthand the potential of these programs, but states don’t have the resources to scale such transformational pathways alone. The federal government should and could turbocharge CTE to support millions of future electricians, EMTs, coders, plumbers, automotive technicians, early childhood educators and workers in countless other professions. But that won’t happen if Trump eliminates the department.

These changes will inflict tremendous harm on kids’ futures. If Trump follows through with an eventual executive order demolishing the department, his actions may also be illegal. I’m a civics teacher and a lawyer, so here’s a bit of Civics 101: Congress created the Department of Education, and only Congress can abolish it. Neither the president nor Musk has the right to appropriate or eliminate funds or ax entire federal departments — only Congress does. Many legal experts agree with me.

The American people did not vote for chaotic and reckless attacks on public schools.

The American people did not vote for chaotic and reckless attacks on public schools. Even in Nebraska and Kentucky, states that Trump won overwhelmingly, voters rejecteden masse, measures to defund and privatize their public schools. Ironically, the funds Musk wants to take away go disproportionately to supporting children in rural red states.

My union will continue to fight to protect our kids and to fund their future, because it is both the smart and the right thing to do. Last Tuesday, we held over 100 events across the country to protect our kids.

Diverting billions from our children to pay for tax cuts that primarily benefit the wealthy is a callous decision that short-changes everyone. If we want to engage kids, if we want America to be a nation of “explorers, builders, innovators [and] entrepreneurs,” as Trump said in his inaugural address, then logically it follows that we should be investing more in education, not less.

The dreams of millions of kids, and the promise of America, depend on it.

Randi Weingarten

Randi Weingarten is a high school social studies teacher and president of the 1.7 million-member American Federation of Teachers.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

House passes spending bill in attempt to avert a government shutdown

Published

on

House passes spending bill in attempt to avert a government shutdown

The House narrowly passed a spending bill on Tuesday, clearing the first hurdle to avert a government shutdown as the bill now moves to the Senate for a vote.

The six-month continuing resolution passed 217-213, with all Republicans — except Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky — voting for the bill at the urging of President Donald Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson. Rep. Jared Golden of Maine was the only Democrat to support the bill.

Although House Democrats have historically voted to support such stopgap measures, Democratic leaders have said that this time around the spending bill would only help Trump and billionaire Elon Musk continue to enact sweeping cuts across the federal government.

A handful of House Republicans were tight-lipped on how they were leaning ahead of the vote. Massie was the only one among his GOP colleagues who publicly refused to support the measure, criticizing such short-term extensions to keep the government open.

“It amazes me that my colleagues and many of the public fall for the lie that we will fight another day,” he wrote on X.

Massie ultimately remained the lone Republican to defy Trump and Johnson by opposing the bill.

Clarissa-je Lim

Clarissa-Jan Lim is a breaking/trending news blogger for BLN Digital. She was previously a senior reporter and editor at BuzzFeed News.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

USDA axes study into safer menstruation products, citing single reference to trans men

Published

on

USDA axes study into safer menstruation products, citing single reference to trans men

On Friday, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins bragged on social media platform X about the cancellation of a $600,000 grant for Southern University in Louisiana, touting that her department had revoked funds for a study into “menstrual cycles in transgender men.” The only problem? According to the department’s website, that’s not what the grant was intended for.

According to reporting from CBS News, citing the project’s publicly filed documentation posted on the USDA websitethe goal of the study, titled “Farm to Feminine Hygiene,” was to examine the potential health risks posed by synthetic feminine hygiene products and to develop alternatives using natural materials.

In her social media post, Rollins thanked the American Principles Project for the “tip.” The conservative think tank flagged the grant as part of its database of federal spending on what they call the “Gender Industrial Complex.”

Critics pointed to a single sentence in the grant document that referenced “transgender men and people with masculine gender identities, intersex and non-binary persons.” In a statement to CBS News, a USDA spokesperson said the grant was revoked because it “prioritized women identifying as men who might menstruate.”

“This mission certainly does not align with the priorities and policies of the Trump Administration, which maintains that there are two sexes: male and female,” the spokesperson said.

But, as a statement from Southern University’s Agriculture and Research Center made clear, “The term ‘transgender men’ was only used once to state that this project, through the development of safer and healthier [feminine hygiene products]would benefit all biological women.”

Throughout the grant document, the authors made repeated references to women and young girls, including explicitly stating that one of the study’s major objectives was to “educate young women and adolescent girls about menstrual hygiene management through an extension outreach program.”

Southern University is a public, historically Black land-grant institution located in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. As part of the project, researchers planned to establish the first fiber processing center in the state, according to Dr. Samii Kennedy Benson, who oversaw the program. In July, she told Louisiana First News the center would be especially beneficial for “local farmers who often grow fibers on a smaller scale.”

USDA’s decision to revoke the grant is part of a much wider effort within President Donald Trump’s administration to slash government spending, often with little consideration for the actual consequences of those cuts. USDA also recently cut more than $1 billion in funding for programs that help schools and food banks purchase food from local farmers and has fired nearly 10% of the United States Forest Service workforce ahead of wildfire season.

Allison Detzel

Allison Detzel is an editor/producer for BLN Digital.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending