Chief Justice Roberts might not be clear on when to “check the excesses" of Trump's presidency, but the ABA and two very different district court judges do.
I don’t see this going anywhere, the DOJ will attempt to stall as always!! It is nice to see judges from both sides understanding what Trump and his administration are doing is just flat out criminal, discriminatory and unconstitutional !!
Meanwhile, to provide a "distraction", Hegseth has ordered massive mobilization throughout US bases in the ME, which looks for all the world as an impending air attack upon Iranian nuclear enrichment installations, in concert with tRump's comrade-in-felonies Bibi...look out!
This would likely be in the nature of a "surgical strike" rather than a buy-in to a protracted conflict. US law has historically required that Congress issue a declaration of war in the latter circumstance, but in recent decades this has been honored only in the breach. For limited operations, it's advisable for the commander in chief to liaise with Congress, but it's not required.
Thanks Bad Bunny that’s very helpful. I wonder where the line between the two falls though and whether Trump would take any notice of it if Congress tried to invoke it.
If Congress actually tries to invoke it - meaning the Republicans in Congress - Trump would take notice, because at that point he'd be fighting both branches and that is a fight he would lose. (And if he ever loses half the congressional Republicans in general as opposed to on some specific issue, he gets impeached. there are so many things he can be reasonably impeached on and whatever he would be losing Republicans over would probably also be itself impeachable)
The problem is that Speaker Johnson has exactly zero interest in exercising power in any way except as Trump's rubberstamp, and the Republicans are, as a whole, lined up behind the idea of Dictator Supremo Trump.
"These 'settlements' are apparently not in writing or enforceable by the law firms, so the President can change his mind at any time and impose an executive order if the firms stray too far from the President’s wishes—thus maintaining the coercive effect of the Policy even against 'settling' law firms.
This is analogous to the EOs Trump issued against various universities, which are likewise open-ended and intended to have the identical chilling and disequilibrating effect.
The lower courts judiciary have been the only reliable barrier to impeding the aberrant actions of the executive cince inauguration day, in the absence of any congressional check. I salute the ABA's skillfully written pleading and the proper actions of the two Massachusetts judges. Thank you, Chris, for your helpful and always informative reporting.
Despite the public impression of the ABA as the umbrella organization representing the legal industry, it's a voluntary association and they may have an uphill battle to prove to the court's satisfaction that they have standing.
No they don't, being a voluntary association doesn't harm them even a little bit under the Hunt test, which is the relevant test here - the prongs of the test are "(a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization’s purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit."
All three prongs are easy here. In fact, being voluntary helps with the second prog - if it was mandatory that would arguably harm its ability to say that the rule of law as distinct from the good of individual lawyers is germane to its purpose.
I don’t see this going anywhere, the DOJ will attempt to stall as always!! It is nice to see judges from both sides understanding what Trump and his administration are doing is just flat out criminal, discriminatory and unconstitutional !!
Meanwhile, to provide a "distraction", Hegseth has ordered massive mobilization throughout US bases in the ME, which looks for all the world as an impending air attack upon Iranian nuclear enrichment installations, in concert with tRump's comrade-in-felonies Bibi...look out!
Can he do this without congressional approval? (Brit here and I’m not entirely au fait with all your constitutional rules).
This would likely be in the nature of a "surgical strike" rather than a buy-in to a protracted conflict. US law has historically required that Congress issue a declaration of war in the latter circumstance, but in recent decades this has been honored only in the breach. For limited operations, it's advisable for the commander in chief to liaise with Congress, but it's not required.
Thanks Bad Bunny that’s very helpful. I wonder where the line between the two falls though and whether Trump would take any notice of it if Congress tried to invoke it.
If Congress actually tries to invoke it - meaning the Republicans in Congress - Trump would take notice, because at that point he'd be fighting both branches and that is a fight he would lose. (And if he ever loses half the congressional Republicans in general as opposed to on some specific issue, he gets impeached. there are so many things he can be reasonably impeached on and whatever he would be losing Republicans over would probably also be itself impeachable)
The problem is that Speaker Johnson has exactly zero interest in exercising power in any way except as Trump's rubberstamp, and the Republicans are, as a whole, lined up behind the idea of Dictator Supremo Trump.
"These 'settlements' are apparently not in writing or enforceable by the law firms, so the President can change his mind at any time and impose an executive order if the firms stray too far from the President’s wishes—thus maintaining the coercive effect of the Policy even against 'settling' law firms.
This is analogous to the EOs Trump issued against various universities, which are likewise open-ended and intended to have the identical chilling and disequilibrating effect.
The lower courts judiciary have been the only reliable barrier to impeding the aberrant actions of the executive cince inauguration day, in the absence of any congressional check. I salute the ABA's skillfully written pleading and the proper actions of the two Massachusetts judges. Thank you, Chris, for your helpful and always informative reporting.
Great tripleheader.
Despite the public impression of the ABA as the umbrella organization representing the legal industry, it's a voluntary association and they may have an uphill battle to prove to the court's satisfaction that they have standing.
Big standing problem. But who cares, because trump is bad.
No they don't, being a voluntary association doesn't harm them even a little bit under the Hunt test, which is the relevant test here - the prongs of the test are "(a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization’s purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit."
All three prongs are easy here. In fact, being voluntary helps with the second prog - if it was mandatory that would arguably harm its ability to say that the rule of law as distinct from the good of individual lawyers is germane to its purpose.