Congress
Trump is about to face an audience with the power to make or break his agenda. And it’s not Congress.
When President Donald Trump speaks to a joint session of Congress Tuesday night, the audience with the most sway over his second-term agenda won’t be the lawmakers. It’s the Supreme Court justices.
Trump’s blitz of early executive actions have triggered a tsunami of more than 100 lawsuits — many of them heading toward the high court. Two of those actions have already made it to the justices, and their looming rulings could strike at Congress’ power to control federal spending and the independence of executive branch watchdogs.
Trump’s muscular moves to crack down on legal and illegal immigration, fire tens of thousands of government employees, shutter the U.S. Agency for International Development, end diversity, equity and inclusion programs and strip the rights of transgender people all raise significant questions about the legal limits of executive power.
“When a president’s agenda relies on unlawful actions, a lot of the action is going to be in the courts,” said Elizabeth Goitein of New York University’s Brennan Center. “There’s no question that all of this is going to be challenged. This will be a true test of the Supreme Court in many, many ways.”
Chief Justice John Roberts and a few other justices typically attend State of the Union addresses, though the full bench doesn’t always show up. The justices sit in the front row of the House floor, typically putting on their best poker faces while the members of Congress around them cheer and jeer.
In previous years, even subtle reactions by the justices have stoked controversy. And this time, the speech will be occurring while the court is facing two imminent decisions that could affect the trajectory of Trump’s term.
The two major disputes about Trump’s assertions of presidential power at the high court have the potential to deliver another jolt to his rocky relationship with the conservative justices, including the three he appointed in his first term.
One involves Trump’s ability to fire executive branch officials despite laws Congress passed to protect those appointees from removal without cause. The other revolves around Trump’s authority to oversee an abrupt and sweeping freeze on billions of dollars in foreign aid. Trump is likely to discuss in his remarks Tuesday some of these efforts as part of his administration’s work to shrink the federal bureaucracy.
At the heart of both cases is Trump’s desire to test and stretch the outer boundaries of executive power — and whether Trump can bypass laws meant to limit his ability to fire people and curtail programs he doesn’t like despite Congress funding them.
The two cases have another thing in common: They have zoomed to the court on the so-called shadow docket, where the justices handle emergency requests. And more requests are likely given the scores of pending challenges to Trump policies.
Trump’s penchant for executive action driving much of the litigation stems from his desire to be seen as getting stuff done and his impatience with process and congressional negotiations. It’s also born out of necessity.
Thanks to a razor-thin GOP margin in the House and the effective veto that the Senate’s filibuster rule hands to Democrats, the prospects for Trump passing much in the way of legislation are minimal. In crudely partisan terms, Trump’s policies may stand a better chance with the six-justice conservative majority he cemented in his first term than they do across the street at the Capitol.
During his first term, Trump repeatedly trashed judges who ruled against him. His invective against the judiciary grew so pointed that Roberts issued an extraordinary statement disputing the president’s description of a jurist who ruled against the administration’s asylum policies as an “Obama judge.”
“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them,” Roberts declared.
During Trump’s first term, his policies got a mixed reception at the Supreme Court. The court largely upheld his pro-business environmental policies and allowed him to spend billions of dollars on his border wall project despite failing to get funding for it through Congress. On the other hand, the court rejected Trump’s effort to end the program for so-called Dreamers.
One of his highest-profile and most controversial moves — the travel ban dubbed a “Muslim ban” by critics — was effectively slowed and watered down by litigation. The high court ultimately let part of the ban take effect and ultimately upheld the president’s authority to issue it.
“Sometimes, if you listen to the mainstream media, you’d think that the court handed him everything on a silver platter, which isn’t true. But I think [they] went his way more often than not,” said Curt Levey of the conservative Committee for Justice. “At least some of the justices didn’t seem crazy about Trump. If you were predicting it based just on ideology, probably more would have gone Trump’s way. But there seemed to be a certain desire to push back against Trump, right? Until I see otherwise this term, I’ll just assume that it’s going to be the same.”
As his first term came to a close, Trump was bitterly disappointed that none of the justices — including his three picks: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — backed any of the legal challenges to his loss in the 2020 presidential election.
“The Supreme Court, they rule against me so much,” Trump told the crowd at the Ellipse on Jan. 6, 2021. He also complained that the justices were too worried about their standing on the “social circuit.” “And the only way they get out is to rule against Trump. ‘So, let’s rule against Trump.’ And they do that. So, I want to congratulate them,” he said sarcastically.
As Trump was mounting his bid to return to the White House, he often groused about the justices. In 2022, when the court refused to step in to prevent his tax returns from being turned over to a House committee, he made his bitterness clear.
“Why would anybody be surprised that the Supreme Court has ruled against me, they always do!” he wrote on Truth Social. “The Supreme Court has lost its honor, prestige, and standing, & has become nothing more than a political body, with our Country paying the price. They refused to even look at the Election Hoax of 2020. Shame on them!”
At other times, Trump has been almost effusive about the court, particularly on the role the justices he appointed played in overturning the federal constitutional right to an abortion after nearly half a century.
“With the help of six very wise and brave Supreme Court Justices, I was successful in terminating Roe v. Wade – Something which few thought was possible to do!” Trump wrote. (Only five justices actually joined in the decision to end Roe. Roberts, an appointee of President George W. Bush, did not sign onto the majority opinion when the court took that momentous step in 2022.)
Of course, but for a couple of key wins at the high court last year, Trump wouldn’t be speaking to Congress or advancing any government agenda because he may never have returned to the presidency.
In March, the justices unanimously rejected a bid to knock Trump off the ballot in Colorado due to his role in fomenting the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021. And in July, the high court split largely along ideological lines as it upended special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecutions of Trump by ruling that presidents enjoy broad criminal immunity for acts taken while in office. The justices’ ruling helped fuel Trump’s narrative that he was being unfairly persecuted by his enemies.
Trump’s conflicted view of the court and his tendency to harbor perpetual disappointment in the justices was at its clearest in 2023 as he addressed a National Rifle Association convention in Indianapolis.
“They don’t help me much. I’ve got to tell you that. They vote against me too much,” Trump said. “It’s one of those little things in life, right?….They are outstanding people and great scholars, brilliant. And they’ve done a very good job, I always say–-except for me.”
Senate Republicans are hopeful they will be able to confirm Todd Blanche as attorney general by the end of the week. But he’s not in the clear yet, as several undecided GOP senators continue to mull it over.
Blanche’s prospects were nonetheless much improved Monday — less than 24 hours after some GOP senators were predicting he was unlikely to get confirmed as a war of words escalated between President Donald Trump and holdout Republicans.
But then Blanche cut a deal with Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) late Sunday night to clarify a controversial settlement between Trump and the IRS, giving Blanche the votes he needed to get through the Judiciary Committee Tuesday.
He still needs to get through the full Senate, where he can only lose two Republican votes given likely unified opposition from Senate Democrats and Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell’s absence.
Several GOP senators who raised alarms last week about Trump’s public threats to rekindle the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” Cornyn and Tillis worked to kill declined to say Monday how they’d vote on Blanche.But in a positive sign for the acting attorney general, several are looking to Tillis and Cornyn, who are now supporting him, as a lodestar for their own deliberations ahead of likely floor votes later this week.
“I think certainly the fact that he has signed this order, basically disbanding [the fund] — that’s a pretty good step,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), before adding that she would “like to find out a little bit more about the negotiations.”
Murkowski said she plans to speak with Tillis and Cornyn.
“I’m curious about what went on over the weekend,” she said.
Blanche has made efforts to ingratiate himself with Murkowski. In July, he trekked to Alaska, in part at Murkowski’s urging, to better understand public safety and tribal jurisdiction matters. He recently announced a nine-figure settlement benefiting Alaska natives’ health care that Murkowski was pleased with.
“I just appreciated the fact that he went to the state,” Murkowski said. “He was only there for two days, but I had asked him in my initial meeting to go up to the state.”
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), who like Cornyn lost his primary earlier this year to a Trump-backed challenger, declined to discuss Blanche Monday. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) added that she also wanted to talk to Tillis and Cornyn and read the agreement they struck with Blanche.
“Until I do that, I am not going to make a judgement,” Collins said.
Another Republican who hasn’t yet committed to supporting Blanche is Sen. John Curtis (R-Utah). He met with Blanche last week but hasn’t yet weighed in since Sunday night’s agreement. He had indicated before Sunday’s deal that he would be closely tracking Tillis and Cornyn during Tuesday’s Judiciary Committee meeting.
Getting Blanche’s nomination on a trajectory to pass the Senate this week would relieve some of the pressure on Senate Republicans, who are juggling a long to-do list and a shrinking runway to get it done. Trump, amid last week’s standoff, demanded that Senate Republicans confirm Blanche, including warning during a Cabinet meeting that they “will never get anybody like him.”
Tillis told reporters Monday that “the back-and-forth over the weekend was not helpful” but that the talks “ended up at an acceptable place.”
If Blanche gets out of the Judiciary Committee Tuesday as expected, the soonest the Senate could confirm him as attorney general is Saturday unless Democrats unanimously agree to help speed up a final vote.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Monday that he’s hopeful the Senate will be able to confirm Blanche but didn’t give an ironclad guarantee as the remaining undecided members review the agreement and talk to Tillis and Cornyn.
“I’d like to figure out a way, a path forward to get him done,” Thune said.
Democrats are likely to use Tuesday’s Judiciary Committee meeting, and the days leading up to a full Senate vote, to hammer Republicans over the deal Cornyn and Tillis struck. Many predicted Monday that Trump wouldn’t stick by the agreement that limits the scope of the IRS settlement and nullifies the $1.8 billion payout fund.
“There are so many loopholes. I wouldn’t be surprised if the president went ahead with the program,” said Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee.
Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) warned the remaining undecided Republicans about the deal: “I don’t think that that commitment is worth what it’s written on.”
While Democrats can drag Blanche’s confirmation into the weekend, they aren’t able to prevent him from being confirmed if at least 50 GOP senators support him. But they are determined to use the debate to hit at one of their central midterm campaign messages — corruption — with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer calling Blanche the “architect of Trump’s grifts.”
Tillis suggested Monday he still has questions about who in Trump’s orbit played a role in the roller coaster negotiations over the past week. While the retiring senator is prepared to support Blanche, he said that he’s “not done analyzing the anatomy of this deal and who played a role in there.”
“I’m not going to speak for other members, but I think that it’ll be a solid vote,” he added about Blanche’s chances of being confirmed.
Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), who appeared skeptical during a Sunday morning talk show interview that Blanche would get through the Senate, did a 180 Monday when asked whether he would get confirmed: “Yes, I do.”
Jennifer Scholtes contributed to this report.
Multiple Senate Republicans joined Sen. Bernie Moreno in calling for Rep. Max Miller to step down from office Monday amid domestic abuse allegations from the Ohio senator’s daughter.
Bernie Moreno — father of Miller’s ex-wife, Emily Moreno — said in a statement Sunday that Miller should not serve in the House soon after the House Republican did a livestream video attempting to defend himself from abuse accusations.
Many of Bernie Moreno’s GOP colleagues were quick to back him following the statement.
“I don’t know [Miller]. I haven’t read a whole lot about him, but if [Moreno] thinks he ought to resign, I’m supportive of that,” Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia said in an interview.
Miller has denied the allegations, which include pouring hot water on his ex-wife and holding a gun to her head. He has also denied accusations from his ex-wife that he broke his daughter’s collarbone.
Sen. Roger Marshall of Kansas condemned Miller, adding, “He should resign. He should quit.”
“I don’t know Mr. Miller’s story, but I trust Bernie so much as a good friend, and his family has such high values,” Marshall said in an interview. “I couldn’t imagine them wanting this out in public. So to go through with this, it makes me think that they’re telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”
The surge of support from Bernie Moreno’s Senate colleagues marks the first significant crack in a wall of GOP silence regarding the allegations against Miller. The skepticism from Miller’s own party will almost certainly weigh down the congressman’s already floundering campaign as he battles Democratic candidate Brian Poindexter to keep his Cleveland-area House seat.
Miller has until Wednesday to withdraw from the ballot and allow a crash primary to select a replacement.
Some Republican lawmakers stopped short of calling on Miller to withdraw or resign while expressing grave concern about the allegations.
“The accusations are very serious, and if there is truth to them, I am one who says that our elected officials need to be held to high standards,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said. “And certainly, when it comes to allegations of domestic abuse, child abuse, that’s not what we want in our lawmakers.”
A spokesperson for Miller did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In response to Moreno’s statement, Miller said on Sunday, “If my daughter said the same thing to me, I personally wouldn’t wait two years before holding him accountable.”
“You know this isn’t true and the only reason you are speaking out now is to hide from your own media circus,” he added in the post on X.
Notably still silent was GOP Sen. Jon Husted, Ohio’s other senator, who while leaving the Capitol Monday did not respond to reporters’ questions about whether Miller should resign.
Other Republicans in the Ohio House delegation are also staying quiet for now. Almost every House Republican from the state either declined to comment or did not respond to requests for comment on Moreno’s statement.
The exception was Rep. Jim Jordan, who brushed off questions in a Thursday CNN interview about Miller but noted he was “a good man” and was recently campaigning for him.
Asked Monday if Miller should still serve in Congress following Bernie Moreno’s statement, spokesperson for Jordan Stefanie Farrell said, “As Mr. Jordan has said, it’s up to the voters of Ohio’s 7th District.”
Back in the Senate, other Republicans who were unaware of the situation declined to weigh in on the incident.
“I am not aware of the situation, so I don’t have a comment right now,” said Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), who has been a leading GOP voice on domestic violence issues within the military.
But a steady drip of Republican senators said Monday evening they trusted Bernie Moreno.“It would surprise me if Bernie were being untruthful,” Sen. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming said. “I guess I was surprised that it bubbled up to the public sphere, but I suspect that Bernie has got a beat on the situation.”
Sen. Jim Justice of West Virginia said he was unaware of the details of the allegations but that “Bernie’s a pretty level-headed guy.”
“I don’t know enough about the allegations, but like Bernie said, it sounds like he thinks he needs psychological help,” Sen. Rick Scott of Florida said, adding, “I trust Bernie.”
Chris Marquette contributed to this report.
Senate Budget Committee Republicans will meet Tuesday morning to talk about advancing a fiscal blueprint for a new party-line spending bill.
Chair Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) declined to say , in an interview Monday if he plans to introduce a resolution this week, noting that he was “working with leadership” and that the “first priority” is to pass a stopgap spending bill. Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a panel member, said he didn’t expect the Senate to take up a budget resolution this week because “I don’t think my leadership wants to do it.”
Senate Majority Leader John Thune hasn’t ruled out taking up a budget resolution but has been frank about the challenges it faces among GOP senators.
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship11 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words