Margot Cleveland
@ProfMJCleveland
·
Follow
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Obama appointee Allison Dale Burroughs enters TRO against Trump Administration in Harvard case WITHOUT a Trump attorney even appearing in case. Yes, TROs can be ex parte BUT THIS IS NUTS because . . .
Margot Cleveland
@ProfMJCleveland
Harvard's lawsuit against Trump Administration was predictable, as was its request for a TRO. Will a court blindly issue a TRO, given there is no immediate harm per the letter? Probably. 1/
12:24 PM · May 23, 2025 //

Josh Blackman, constitutional law professor at the South Texas College of Law Houston and President of the Harlan Institute, wrote Friday:

[We do] …not have time stamps, but the case could not have been on her docket for more than a few hours.

I have a serious question: did Judge Burroughs even read the 72-page complaint and 59-page motion for a TRO? What about all of the pages of exhibits? Did she have any time to reflect upon it or consider countervailing arguments? //

RSB
4 hours ago edited
This is one the administration should openly defy. Not only is there zero legal basis for the TRO and the judge violated multiple TRO rules but SEVP is explicitly not covered under APA (it is just an internal program of INS) and the executive has sole, nonjudiciable authority on issuing and withdrawing visas. They CANNOT be compelled to do so.

Thursday, the Senate voted to block a package of vehicle emissions regulations issued by California, including a highly controversial rule that would have banned the sale of gasoline-powered (aka real) cars by 2035. In the process, tears were shed, threats were issues, and knickers became tightly knotted by leftist Democrats out to cripple the US economy. //

Only a month before leaving office, the [Biden administration] approved a California regulation that banned the sale of new cars and trucks in California in 2035. This was a decision of earthshaking import. Given the size of its market, unilateral economic actions affect the entire country as businesses adjust their processes to accommodate California regulations. Making matters worse, 11 other states were in the process of enacting similar bans. All told, this would have reduced the market for new gasoline-powered automobiles in the US by 40%. This approval was an obviously malicious act by the outgoing EPA management. The EPA had been sitting on the approvals since 2022 but dumped this burning bag of ordure on the front porch of the Trump White House for political points.

The House teed up the action with a bipartisan vote of 246-164 to disapprove three EPA waivers granted to California: a "zero emissions" standard for trucks, a regulation that would have essentially banned heavy-duty off-road vehicles, and the 2035 ban on real cars and trucks.

When the resolution of disapproval arrived in the Senate, its fate was in question. The General Accounting Office had rendered a "legal opinion" (funny how that phrase has become synonymous with "anti-Trump mischief-making") that a mere waiver of an existing law did not rise to the level of being a regulation that the mere collective vote of Congress could override. In this assertion, the GAO was joined by the Senate parliamentarian. //

Neither the GAO nor the parliamentarian has binding authority over the will of the Senate, but what Republicans wanted to avoid was the appearance of steamrolling the parliamentarian. This is where the solid leadership of South Dakota's John Thune came into play in a clear contrast to the "failure theater" directed by Mitch McConnell whenever he was majority leader. //

Thune decided to go around the bureaucratic obstacle. “What I didn’t want to do was vote to overturn the parliamentarian," said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), "and with help from a lot of experts the leader came up with an approach that avoids that outcome, and I’m glad.” //

What Thune did was get a ruling from the floor that the situation was not as cut and dried as the GAO and parliamentarian had claimed and that the waivers did, indeed, fall under the provisions of the Congressional Review Act. //

DaveM
8 hours ago
"[Schumer]: This Senate vote is illegal,"

Apparently we have more than a few Senators sworn to uphold the Constitution that have never bothered to read it.

Article II Section 5 Paragraph 2:
"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..." //

Romeg
7 hours ago
After carefully scouring my copy of The Constitution of The United States of America I have to report that I was unable to find that article, clause, paragraph or amendment that grants California the power to regulate interstate commerce. Perhaps someone reading this can help me out. //

anon-hlc8 streiff
7 hours ago
Sometimes the problem is that whomever is prosecuting the case does not bring that point of law up in their briefing. If they do not bring up that states may not regulate or impede interstate commerce, the judge is not going to help them out. //

Romeg streiff
5 hours ago
I cannot avoid the conclusion that such rulings utterly negate the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. Wickard v Filburn went in the completely opposite direction making ALL commerce, in effect, Interstate Commerce and thus subject to congressional regulation. The ruling you cite along with past failures to challenge CA's high-handedness seem to be judicial nullification of at least certain aspects of that clause in the Constitution.

Josh Gerstein @joshgerstein
·
BREAKING: #SCOTUS allows Trump to fire labor board members. Apparent 6-3 decision with all liberal justices in dissent. Court says more harm from denying POTUS right to remove officials than from those officials staying in office. Doc: https://documentcloud.org/documents/25951855-24a966-order/
4:44 PM · May 22, 2025. //

Tom Fitton @TomFitton
·
In a massive blow to the permanent administrative state, the Supreme Court, in 6-3 order, lifts stay on @RealDonaldTrump firings of Democratic appointees to "independent agencies." Key majority finding does not augur well for the future of constitutionally suspect agencies that protect appointees from being fired by the Chief Executive:
6:21 PM · May 22, 2025

The stay reflects our judgment that the Government is likely to show that both the NLRB and MSPB exercise considerable executive power. But we do not ultimately decide in this posture whether the NLRB or MSPB falls within such a recognized exception; that question is better left for resolution after full briefing and argument. The stay also reflects our judgment that the Government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty.

Christian camp IdRaHaJe in Colorado refuses to comply with progressive gender ideology policies and faces potential shutdown. //

Nestled in the scenic mountains of Bailey, a town 30 miles southwest of Denver with less than 10,000 residents, IdRaHaJe has been serving children ages six to 17 since its founding in 1948 through various programs, such as summer camps, off-site backpacking, and camping trips. The camp’s name comes from the hymn “I’d Rather Have Jesus!” and reflects its commitment to Christianity.

So when they sought emergency relief at 12:34 a.m. on April 18, Petitioners “were fully aware that the District Court intended to give the Government 24 hours to file a response.” A.A.R.P., 605 U.S. at _ (Alito, J., dissenting). They “said nothing about a plan to appeal if the District Court elected to wait for that response.” Id.

At 12:48 p.m. on April 18, however, Petitioners “suddenly informed the court that they would file an appeal if the District Court did not act within 42 minutes, i.e., by 1:30 p.m.” Id. //

This charge is worth exploring. To get to 14 hours and 28 minutes (rather than 42 minutes), the Court was obviously starting the clock at 12:34 a.m., rather than 12:48 p.m. (when Petitioners told the district court for the first time that they wanted a ruling before the Government could respond).

But starting the clock at 12:34 a.m. not only ignores the court’s express instructions respecting the Government’s right to respond. It also ignores the fact that the Court is starting the clock at—12:34 a.m.

We seem to have forgotten that this is a district court—not a Denny’s. This is the first time I’ve ever heard anyone suggest that district judges have a duty to check their dockets at all hours of the night, just in case a party decides to file a motion.

And then he adds the cherry on top:

If this is going to become the norm, then we should say so: District judges are hereby expected to be available 24 hours a day—and the Judicial Conference of the United States and the Administrative Office of the U.S.Courts should secure from Congress the resources and staffing necessary to ensure 24-hour operations in every district court across the country.

If this is not to become the norm, then we should admit that this is special treatment being afforded to certain favored litigants like members of Tren de Aragua—and we should stop pretending that Lady Justice is blindfolded. //

anon-fht2
4 minutes ago
The rationale for the Founders intentionally NOT Constitutionally requiring the other two branches to comply with the judiciary is playing out in real time. It is also apparent that the judicial insurrection by the district courts is bleeding over into the interactions between the lower courts, and between the lower courts and SCOTUS. Not in a good way either.

After reading the full response of the 5th Circuit appeals judge to the SCOTUS ruling, IMO Justice Roberts should be embarrassed that such a shoddy ruling by a SCOTUS court ever saw the light of day, much less received 7 votes of 9. It almost as if Justice Roberts wants a repeat of President Jackson’s response to a Marshal SCOTUS decision.

For the judicial branch, this seems like a slow motion catastrophe being played out with each new judicial “salvo” further undermining respect and trust for the judicial branch. Our Republic was in trouble enough with Congress and the Executive being viewed with disdain by most Americans. The Executive may regain some trust and respect under Trump, but the Judiciary had been more positively viewed than the other two branches, at least until this judicial insurrection against Trump began. Now the judiciary seems to being trying to outdo Congress for the level of earned contempt in which they are held, with SCOTUS attempting to show the way with this ruling.

IMO - YMMV

DemsShouldPayReparations Curmudgeon99
13 hours ago edited

"He is the worst Chief Justice in history, "

Really? Would you reconsider if you knew more facts?

Worse than Chief Justice Roger B. Taney. who wrote the Dred Scott decision, extending slavery in all States, which was one of the triggers for the Civil War?

Once Essayli and Co. have determined that someone has committed a felony by re-entering the country, the whole game changes:

As soon as the task force ID's an alien booked into a local jail who has a previous deportation, they seek a federal criminal warrant on them for felony re-entry, signed off on by a federal judge.

Unlike an administrative ICE warrant or ICE detainer request, these criminal judicial warrants for 8 USC 1326 CANNOT be ignored by sanctuary jurisdictions, and California's sanctuary state law cannot shield aliens from these criminal warrants. Instead of releasing the alien inmates and ignoring ICE detainers, jails must hand the aliens over to the Feds, regardless of sanctuary policy.

A castle doctrine is a self-defense law that states that a person’s home (sometimes also a place of work or vehicle) is a place that grants one protection and immunity from prosecution in certain circumstances to use force or deadly force to defend oneself against an intruder. There is no duty to retreat from the situation in one’s home (or workplace or vehicle if applicable) before using force, but there may be a duty to retreat in a public place.

The United States has two different self-defense laws. The “Stand Your Ground” Law states that there is no duty to retreat from the situation before using deadly force and is not limited to one’s home, place of work, or vehicle. The “Duty to Retreat” Law states that one cannot harm another in self-defense when it is possible to retreat from a threatening situation to a place of safety. In all duty-to-retreat states, the duty to retreat does not apply when the defender is in their own home. States may have both a Castle Doctrine and a Stand Your Ground variation, such as Iowa.

Weber ultimately underwent the procedure. She said she wanted readers to know that the state’s pro-life law was “so dangerous for women.” But in reality, assuming her account is accurate — if it’s true that doctors refused to perform a lifesaving medical procedure because of the state’s pro-life law — the entire ordeal doesn’t prove anything other than that some doctors are incompetent and don’t know how to navigate relatively simple state laws.

The facts are these: the South Carolina “heartbeat bill” explicitly spells out that a doctor can perform an abortion if he determines “that a medical emergency exists or is performed to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.” For good measure, the law directly states that both “intrauterine fetal demise” and “miscarriage” constitute a medical emergency that can justify an abortion.

This is the substance of the law. There are no gimmicks or hidden rules. By her own account there was absolutely no reason that Elisabeth Weber should not have received a D&C. The problem was not with state law, but with the doctors who were either too ignorant or too risk-averse (or both) to do proper medicine.

This is and always has been untrue; Every pro-life law in the United States, without exception, contains provisions that allow for emergency medical intervention to save a mother’s life. //

Doctors are forbidden from killing an unborn child in an act of abortion, but they are more than able to perform related procedures that can save a mother’s life (all the more so in tragic cases like Weber’s, where the baby has died, or even in Thurman’s case, where the babies were killed).

We should never fall for this type of misdirection. Abortion advocates who claim that such laws forbid doctors from saving the lives of women should point to the specific part of the law they claim makes this so.

In Thursday’s hearing, Thomas asked Sauer — who represented the Trump administration — about the history of nationwide injunctions and when courts first started issuing such orders. The solicitor general answered by citing Thomas’ concurring opinion in Trump v. Hawaii, a 2018 case that resulted in SCOTUS reversing “a lower court’s decision to uphold a nationwide injunction on Trump’s travel ban,” according to The Federalist’s John Daniel Davidson.

In his concurrence in that case, Thomas noted how nationwide injunctions by lower courts “did not emerge until a century and a half after the founding.” He further observed that these injunctions “appear to be inconsistent with longstanding limits on equitable relief and the power of Article III courts.”

“These injunctions are beginning to take a toll on the federal court system — preventing legal questions from percolating through the federal courts, encouraging forum shopping, and making every case a national emergency for the courts and for the Executive Branch,” Thomas wrote.

In his response to Thomas, Sauer highlighted several examples of universal injunctions that he said began emerging in the early 1960s.

“So we survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions?” asked Thomas, to which Sauer replied, “That’s exactly correct.”

Sauer added, “In fact, those [injunctions] are very limited and very rare even in the 1960s. It really exploded in 2007 in our cert petition in Summers v. Earth Island Institute, we pointed out that the Ninth Circuit had started doing this in a whole bunch of cases involving environmental claims.”

"Democrats are learning … that Democrats can not only be the party of resistance."

"Like we resisted so hard between 2017 and 2024," Smith said. "We impeached the guy [Trump]. Like, we prosecuted him. Convicted him of 34 felony counts. And guess what, he still got elected. I don't know how much harder we can resist right now." //

Scott Jennings @ScottJenningsKY
·
I can't believe it. They finally admitted it on live TV:

The prosecution of President Trump was an organized effort by the Democratic Party "resistance."

Lawfare is real. The justice system was weaponized against President Trump.

5:39 PM · May 15, 2025 //

"Just to be clear, everyone that now touts the 34 felonies, take it from Lis, this was not a real case," Jennings said. "This was a plot to upend the presidential campaign. Which backfired." //

cupera1 Mildred's Oldest Son
13 hours ago
The Trump Soviet Union show trial in NY City is a Rube Goldberg legal construction that should not have worked. The original alleged crime is a simple misdemeanor under a New York law against falsifying business records. This law passed the Statute of Limitations over five years ago. The NY DA’s office looked at this case at that time and passed on it. Then Trump announced his candidacy to run for president and everything changed.

To defibrillate the case against Trump they claimed that misdemeanor, Penal Law Section 175.05, was connected to an alleged election violation felony. This secondary statues the prosecutors cite, state and federal election crimes, cannot and were not proven. The state law had also passed its statute of limitation years ago. Federal law can’t be tried in a state court. The FEC looked at this case and laughed at it.

The only way this trial against Trump could have worked was using “lawfare" for Democrats: Selecting a jury of anti-Trump partisans. Using known liars and perjurers to support the charges. Keeping Brady evidence from the jury, don’t want anyone to get a conscience. And a DNC judge with his thumb on the scales that made multiple reversible errors during the trial and violating Trumps 6th Amendment rights. We learned that Trump was going to be found guilty BEFORE the jury came back. Democrats applied the same legal philosophy of Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria, head of the NKVD under Stalin "Show me the man and I will find the crime."

Nevertheless, they believe our order applies to tens of thousands of individuals.

So, you get the sense that the appellate court was a tad exasperated with the plaintiffs' more expansive reading as to who was entitled to exemption from the EO. Nevertheless, Whitehead's subsequent order read as indignant and snippy, particularly toward the administration (but even a bit toward the appellate court). He characterized their interpretation of the 9th Circuit's prior order as "'interpretive jiggerypokery' of the highest order." He concluded that [emphasis added]: //

As anticipated, the administration quickly sought further clarification from the 9th Circuit (and, "in light of the increasingly contentious collateral proceedings over compliance in the district court," a complete stay of the district court's injunction).

On Friday, the 9th Circuit obliged and, in a very succinct order, again clarified that plaintiffs (and by inference, Whitehead) were again reading the scope of the exemption too broadly [emphasis added]:

Our order should be interpreted narrowly, on a case-by-case basis, to apply to individuals with a strong reliance interest arising prior to January 20, 2025, comparable to Plaintiff Pacito. //

Cynical Optimist
7 hours ago
“Jiggerpokery?” A judge actually used that word in an official document?

Susie Moore Cynical Optimist
7 hours ago
Yup. Now - he was actually quoting Antonin Scalia (from his dissent in King v. Burwell). 😂

The order by U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich came amid a lawsuit by Centro de Trabajadores Unidos, an immigrant-rights aid group, against Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.

"At its core, this case presents a narrow legal issue: Does the Memorandum of Understanding between the IRS and DHS violate the Internal Revenue Code? It does not," Friedrich wrote in his order.

(Note: Friedrich, a Trump appointee, is a woman, so that would be her order.) //

Under the tax code, those records are kept confidential and may not be shared outside the IRS, unless a particular statutory exception applies. 26 U.S.C. § 6103(a). As relevant here, one such exception, § 6103(i)(2), allows the head of any federal agency to request tax return information to aid in investigating or preparing for a judicial or administrative proceeding to enforce designated criminal statutes. Id. § 6103(i)(2). //

Also on Monday, Friedrich denied the motion of American Oversight (a group involved in several suits against the Trump administration) to intervene in the case. In doing so, she noted that she was unsealing most of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the IRS and DHS, along with the parties' briefs, thus obviating American Oversight's contention that intervention was warranted to access the documents at issue:

The MOU is a central focus of this litigation, and the information contained in the redacted MOU has been widely discussed, including on the record in open court at the April 16, 2025 preliminary injunction motion hearing. Although the government objects to its full disclosure, it has not asserted a compelling interest or high risk of prejudice with disclosure of the MOU and briefs. The public need for access is high given that the MOU's content is essential to the claims raised by the plaintiffs and the Court's reasoning in its forthcoming opinion on the 28 Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. The Court will not order, however, that the IRS "points of contact" on page 13 of the MOU be unsealed. With respect to those lower level government employees, the Court concludes that their personal privacy interests outweigh any public need to access their names and contact information.

In case you missed it, the below EO is a big deal. Trump is forcing the federal government to spell out everything that is a crime under federal law. The other thing the EO does is to force the government to add a "mens rea" element to most of these "crimes"; i.e., you have to be aware of the fact that you are committing a crime in order for it to be a crime.

Thus, if you decide to build a pond on your property and the EPA has some obscure regulation saying that is a crime, you would need to be aware of the criminal nature of the act before you did it in order to be guilty of anything.

This is great.

The whole EO is linked in my post below, but I wanted to call attention to one tangential aspect of it. The EO says:

"It privileges large corporations, which can afford to hire expensive legal teams to navigate complex regulatory schemes and fence out new market entrants, over average Americans.”

This is really important and is a theme I keep coming back to. Regulatory schemes like Dodd-Frank and the CFPB are created ostensibly to help the “little guy,” when in reality they create byzantine layers upon layers of compliance requirements that only mega-corporations can afford to navigate. Those sorts of laws are anti-competitive and hurt most of all the “little guy” they purport to help.

When you hear the likes of Bernie Sanders and Big Chief Lizzie Warren railing against the “oligarchy,” realize that they regulatory schemes they propose serve the oligarchy MOST OF ALL. In fact, Bernie and Lizzie and AOC are the oligarchs, not us.

Presidential Actions
FIGHTING OVERCRIMINALIZATION IN FEDERAL REGULATIONS
Executive Orders
May 9, 2025
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1. Purpose. The United States is drastically overregulated. The Code of Federal Regulations contains over 48,000 sections, stretching over 175,000 pages — far more than any citizen can possibly read, let alone fully understand. Worse, many carry potential criminal penalties for violations. The situation has become so dire that no one -– likely including those charged with enforcing our criminal laws at the Department of Justice — knows how many separate criminal offenses are contained in the Code of Federal Regulations, with at least one source estimating hundreds of thousands of such crimes. Many of these regulatory crimes are “strict liability” offenses, meaning that citizens need not have a guilty mental state to be convicted of a crime.

This status quo is absurd and unjust. It allows the executive branch to write the law, in addition to executing it. That situation can lend itself to abuse and weaponization by providing Government officials tools to target unwitting individuals. It privileges large corporations, which can afford to hire expensive legal teams to navigate complex regulatory schemes and fence out new market entrants, over average Americans.

The purpose of this order is to ease the regulatory burden on everyday Americans and ensure no American is transformed into a criminal for violating a regulation they have no reason to know exists.

Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States that:

(a) Criminal enforcement of criminal regulatory offenses is disfavored.

(b) Prosecution of criminal regulatory offenses is most appropriate for persons who know or can be presumed to know what is prohibited or required by the regulation and willingly choose not to comply, thereby causing or risking substantial public harm. Prosecutions of criminal regulatory offenses should focus on matters where a putative defendant is alleged to have known his conduct was unlawful.

(c) Strict liability offenses are “generally disfavored.” United States v. United States Gypsum, Co., 438 U.S. 422, 438 (1978). Where enforcement is appropriate, agencies should consider civil rather than criminal enforcement of strict liability regulatory offenses or, if appropriate and consistent with due process and the right to jury trial, see Jarkesy v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 603 U.S. 109 (2024), administrative enforcement.

(d) Agencies promulgating regulations potentially subject to criminal enforcement should explicitly describe the conduct subject to criminal enforcement, the authorizing statutes, and the mens rea standard applicable to those offenses.

Sec. 3. Definitions. For purposes of this order:

(a) “Agency” has the meaning given to “Executive agency” in section 105 of title 5, United States Code;

(b) “Criminal regulatory offense” means a Federal regulation that is enforceable by a criminal penalty; and

(c) “Mens rea” means the state of mind that by law must be proven to convict a particular defendant of a particular crime.

Sec. 4. Report on Criminal Regulatory Offenses. (a) Within 365 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall provide to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a report containing:

(i) a list of all criminal regulatory offenses enforceable by the agency or the Department of Justice; and

(ii) for each criminal regulatory offense identified in subsection (a)(i) of this section, the range of potential criminal penalties for a violation and the applicable mens rea standard for the criminal regulatory offense.

(b) At the same time the head of each agency provides to the Director of OMB the report required by subsection (a) of this section, the agency head shall publicly post the report on its agency webpage.

The district court dismissed the case, ruling that the APA claims were barred by sovereign immunity because the Library of Congress is part of “the Congress” and therefore not an “agency” within the meaning of the APA’s judicial review provision.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The court held that irrespective of whether the Library is an “agency,” Congress has specified that copyright regulations under Title 17 of the U.S. Code are subject to the APA. The court concluded that DMCA rules are subject to the APA just like other copyright rules, and therefore, the APA provides the necessary waiver of sovereign immunity for this suit. The court remanded the case back to the district court to assess the APA claims.

Judge Illston’s ruling exemplifies a growing trend where district judges are using temporary restraining orders and nationwide injunctions as tools to block executive actions they disagree with. This is judicial activism, plain and simple. It’s one thing to hear a case and rule on it within the confines of a specific district. It’s another to issue a nationwide injunction that overrides the president’s authority across the entire country. //

The judiciary’s role is to interpret the law, not to decide what presidential directives are appropriate. If Congress disagrees with Trump’s restructuring plan, it has the power to pass legislation to counter it. But a single district judge should not have that power. //

The president’s authority to direct the federal workforce and implement agency restructuring must be upheld — otherwise, we’re looking at a future where unelected judges, not elected leaders, are the ones calling the shots.

The Constitution is clear: The president is the head of the executive branch. //

Outerlimitsfan
2 hours ago edited
We are witnessing the tyranny of the Judicial branch that Jefferson was concerned about.

The media is correct that a Constitutional Crisis is on the brink of occurring. The blame lies with the Judicial branch and in particular Roberts who refuses to stop the overreach by district courts.

So many leftist activist judges are angry that Trump got elected again and the lawfare failed to throw him in prison. //

Mrs. deWinter
2 hours ago
If previous Presidents and their administrations can add endless agencies and personnel and grow the government bigger and bigger without any complaint or judicial oversight, then another duly elected President can un-grow it! Period. HE'S the elected Executive. He's the one who makes those decisions about personnel and departments. And obviously, Trump was elected to do just that since the debt is out of control and the government has grown to mammoth proportions where the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing any longer, and the waste, fraud, and corruption are on steroids.

In 1949, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, who had served as co-counsel at Nuremberg, wrote the following as it pertained to a free speech case he was involved in.

“[t]his Court has gone far toward accepting the doctrine that civil liberty means . . . that all local attempts to maintain order are impairments of the liberty of the citizen. The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrine logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”

I could expand on what this means, but I think Thomas Jefferson does a better job than I ever could when he wrote to John Colvin in 1810:

Whether circumstances do not sometimes occur which make it a duty in officers of high trust to assume authorities beyond the law, is easy of solution in principle, but sometimes embarrassing in practice. A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen: but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property & all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.

This is basically the "don't cut your nose off to spite your face" argument. If following the letter of the law is going to send the country over the cliff, apply some common sense and don't follow the letter. Lincoln said as much in 1861 when he suspended habeas corpus by executive order, telling Supreme Court Justice Roger Taney that he had empowered Gen. Winfield Scott to arrest, and detain, without resort to ordinary processes and forms of law, such individuals as he might deem dangerous to public safety because it served the public interest.

And later during a special session of Congress, he said, "In nearly one-third of the States had subverted the whole of the laws ... Are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?" It's kind of a unique and odd argument that the left puts out there today. It wants strict adherence to constitutional law, and at the same time, it wants to violate current immigration law (which was, by the way, legally and constitutionally affirmed). And the fact that we have to grapple with this at all is due to the Democratic Party's practice of busting the law as they soar high above it like a drone. It might make them look like children stealing out of the cookie jar when one of their judges gets caught sneaking illegal aliens out the back door, and it's enjoyable to watch them beclown themselves, but all of this is really quite dangerous. //

One final thing I ran across while studying this matter was a couple of obscure passages in the SCOTUS ruling for the Shaughnessy v. United States case noted above.

a) The alien's right to enter the United States depends on the congressional will, and the courts cannot substitute their judgment for the legislative mandate....In the exercise of these powers, Congress expressly authorized the President to impose additional restrictions on aliens entering or leaving the United States during periods of international tension and strife. That authorization, originally enacted in the Passport Act of 1918, continues in effect during the present emergency. Under it, the Attorney General, acting for the President, may shut out aliens whose "entry would be prejudicial to the interest of the United States."

b) Courts have long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government's political departments largely immune from judicial control.

The sense of entitlement here is just disgusting. First of all, it's absolutely clear that the U.S. Supreme Court has already held that a charitable organization, including specifically a university, can lose its tax-exempt status if they are violating fundamental policy

The reality here is that elite universities are undermining confidence in the entire sector. Jewish students are being harassed and assaulted, and elite university administrators have done nothing to stop it, including at Harvard. Financial incentives seem to be the only lever that we can pull to stop the racist and anti-Semitic conduct on their campuses.

Goldfeder was referencing a 1983 case in which the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that the IRS had authority to deny tax-exempt status to Bob Jones University, Goldsboro Christian School, and other private and religious schools with racially discriminatory educational policies. //

Levin continued:

You have Jewish kids on campus who are being violently threatened, who are being harmed, in some cases running for their safety. That is very serious. If we had black kids on campus running for their safety, locking themselves in libraries, locking themselves in dorm rooms ... you'd be hearing very different stories than you hear from this guy with a smirk on his face. //

ChesterTheGoat
9 hours ago
The holding in the 1983 Bob Jones case is not limited to just interracial dating. It is not that narrow. The SCOTUS held that an IRS 501c3 org "must serve a public purpose and not be contrary to established public policy" and that racially discriminatory conduct was against public policy. To the extent that public universities are found to be following racially discriminatory policies, it is perfectly within SCOTUS precedent to revoke their 501c3 status.

This ruling effectively reins in district courts that have been sidestepping proper jurisdictional channels in cases challenging Trump administration actions. The decision serves as a clear reminder that courts themselves must operate within their prescribed legal boundaries. //

According to Margot Cleveland, senior legal correspondent for The Federalist, the D.C. Circuit’s ruling hinges on a critical point: jurisdiction, which has sweeping implications. As Cleveland explains, many of the legal challenges being hurled at the Trump administration involve employment decisions—precisely the kind of disputes Congress has explicitly said federal district courts have no authority to adjudicate.

The court’s decision also strikes at the heart of a broader legal strategy being used by leftist groups to stymie Trump’s reforms—namely, the claim that the administration is engaging in “wholesale dismantling” of agencies. But as the ruling makes clear, the Administrative Procedure Act was never designed to handle such broad-based political grievances, and Congress never waived sovereign immunity to allow them.

In another key point, the court found that the lower court also overstepped its bounds by trying to restore federal grants—something Congress assigned to the Court of Federal Claims, not the district courts. All told, the decision is a sharp rebuke to the legal overreach being used to obstruct the Trump administration’s agenda. //

The Dark Lord LBPA
20 hours ago
Even worse. This is such a powerful decision it will be appealed to the full DC Circuit for an “en banc” hearing.

Radical Leftists hold a 7 - 4 majority among active judges on the DC Circuit. So, we will lose decisively on appeal.

However, this was such a good opinion it could provide the framework for a sweeping successful decision from SCOTUS. If, …

If Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh decide not to support the judicial coup attempt. //

Hominem Humilem Sum The Dark Lord
18 hours ago
Alas, diminishing the power of the judiciary may not be something Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh are inclined to do: they may prefer to leave the power in the hands of the judiciary and claim the ultimate authority for themselves. Admittedly, that would be a dangerous game to play, since the Article III crew have no indigenous enforcement capability (and would have to rely on the Executive and Legislative Branches to "take their word for it"). //

Mrminwnc Hominem Humilem Sum
18 hours ago
This sounds glib, but respect for the judiciary branch is essentially a courtesy extended by the other two, in particular the executive branch. If the others simply get tired of judges overreaching they can just ignore them.

Margot Cleveland @ProfMJCleveland
·
Replying to @ProfMJCleveland
12/ In sum, this opinion is a HUGE win for Trump because it establishes 3 key principles that apply to many of the other cases being brought against Trump Administration: a) no jurisdiction over firings; b) no jurisdiction over grant terminations;
13/ c) you can't get around Congress limiting district court jurisdiction by creative pleading of claims under other theories; d) with no bond harm to government will outweigh other harm; e) public has interest in Article III obey Article I.
2:14 PM · May 3, 2025 //

The Left only destroys
2 hours ago
require a bond for the injunction
To me, this is the most important part of the ruling. My understanding is that the bond posted must cover the expenses that the defendant (in this case, the Federal Government) incurs if later the injunction is overturned. Given the scope of those activities, the cost of the bonds would be huge. If this really happens (and I'm betting President Trump will move mountains to make sure it is), it will finally prevent every little candy-@$$ed technicolor-haired leftist from filing for injunctive relief six seconds after an Executive Order is issued.