US supreme court

Subterms

    Latest story

    163 Shares27 Views

    Lawyers for Fed governor accuse Trump administration of ‘cherry-picking’ facts in fraud case

    by

    Lawyers for Lisa Cook, the Federal Reserve governor, called Trump administration allegations of mortgage fraud against her “baseless” on Monday and accused the administration of “cherry-picking” discrepancies to bolster their claims.After accusing Cook of misrepresenting multiple residences as her primary residence to get a better mortgage rate, Donald Trump briefly fired Cook from her role as a Fed governor and as one of 12 voting members of the Federal Reserve board that sets interest rates. The supreme court reinstated her back into her position and will be hearing arguments over Cook’s removal in January.In the letter, addressed to Pam Bondi, the US attorney general, and Edward Martin, the deputy attorney general, Abbe Lowell, Cook’s lawyer, outlined for the first time Cook’s detailed defense against the accusations. Lowell said that the dispute involves three of Cook’s properties: a home in Ann Arbor, Michigan, a condo in Atlanta, Georgia and a home in Cambridge, Massachusetts.Lowell said Cook’s primary residence is in Ann Arbor, where she has been a professor at Michigan State University since 2005. While she has been on unpaid leave from the position as she serves on the Fed board, she intends to return to Ann Arbor once her post ends, the letter said.Cook was raised in Milledgeville, Georgia – a town outside of Atlanta. In 2021, Cook purchased a condo in Atlanta to have a place that is close to her family. Though one line on the mortgage application for the property lists it as a primary residence, Lowell argues that it was clearly “inadvertent” and was an “isolated notation”.Any proof of criminal wrongdoing must show that Cook had intentionally misrepresented the property to defraud lenders. But other loan documents show Cook said the home was a vacation home, and nowhere else did she say it was her primary residency. In annual financial disclosures, Cook has listed the condo accurately as a “personal residence”, Lowell writes.For her home in Cambridge, which Cook purchased before she moved to Ann Arbor, Lowell writes that she has consistently listed the home as a second home and rental property for mortgage documents.In his letter, Lowell specifically calls out William Pulte, a Trump ally and director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), for using his role to help target Trump’s political enemies. Pulte has also targeted Letitia James, New York’s attorney general, and Democratic Senator Adam Schiff, two vocal critics of Trump, for similar accusations of mortgage fraud.“The complete package of Governor Cook’s materials clearly demonstrate that this does not amount to the type of criminal wrongdoing that Director Pulte and the president state it to be,” Lowell writes. “Governor Cook’s loan documents made clear her intended uses and, therefore, were not submitted with an intent to mislead the lender or anyone else.”Lowell also said that while Pulte said that anyone, Republican or Democrat, should be held accountable for mortgage fraud, recent reporting has found that four members of Trump’s cabinet, including Scott Bessent, the treasury secretary, also had similar discrepancies on their mortgage documents.“His actions undercut his words. If one seemingly facial contradiction about several property documents were the basis for the mortgage fraud he claims, then one would expect that he would have made referrals to [the justice department] based on the same types of documents about others who appear to have similar or analogous primary residences for more than one home,” Lowell writes. “Yet, director Pulte has ignored many of those allegations”. More

    More stories

    • 163 Shares101 Views

      in US Politics

      US agriculture department tells states to ‘undo’ Snap benefits for families in need

      by

      The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) is directing states to “immediately undo” any steps that have been taken to send out full food aid benefits to low-income Americans, following a supreme court order on Friday that temporarily halted a lower court order requiring those payments.The USDA’s directive, issued in a memo on Saturday, followed a supreme court order granting the Trump administration’s emergency request to pause an order for the USDA to provide full Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap) benefits during the ongoing federal government shutdown, which is now in its 40th day.That lower court ruling, issued on Thursday, ordered the Trump administration to fully fund the Snap program for November by Friday, rather than issuing only partial benefits. The ruling led to some of the roughly 42 million Americans enrolled in Snap – commonly known as food stamps – to begin receiving their full benefits on Friday from the states, which issue the payments of federal dollars.But on Friday night, the program was thrown into chaos again when the supreme courtagreed to temporarily pause the order to allow an appeals court to review the Trump administration’s appeal.In response to the supreme court’s decision, the USDA, which delivers the money to the states, issued its directive that any payments that had been made under the prior orders are considered “unauthorized”.“To the extent States sent full SNAP payment files for November 2025, this was unauthorized,” Patrick Penn, the deputy undersecretary of agriculture, wrote to state Snap directors. “Accordingly, States must immediately undo any steps taken to issue full SNAP benefits for November 2025.”The memo warned: “Failure to comply with this memorandum may results in USDA taking various actions, including cancellation of the Federal share of State administration costs and holding States liable for any overissuances that result from the noncompliance.”As the Associated Press reports, it remains unclear if the directive applies to states using their some of their own funds to sustain the program, or just to ones relying entirely on federal money. The USDA did not immediately respond to a request for clarification from the AP.Lisa Murkowski, a Republican senator for Alaska, said it would be “shocking” if the order applied to states using their own money to support the program.“It’s one thing if the federal government is going to continue its level of appeal through the courts to say, ‘No, this can’t be done,’” Murkowski told the AP. “But when you are telling the states that have said this is a significant enough issue in our state, we’re going to find resources, backfill or front load, whatever term you want, to help our people, those states should not be penalized.”On Sunday several state leaders criticized the memo.Wisconsin’s Democratic governor, Tony Evers, refused to abide by the directive.“No,” Evers said in a statement responding to the memo. “Pursuant to and consistent with an active court order, Wisconsin legally loaded benefits to cards, ensuring nearly 700,000 Wisconsinites, including nearly 270,000 kids, had access to basic food and groceries.”He added that the Trump administration had “assured Wisconsin and other states that they were actively working to implement full SNAP benefits for November and would ‘complete the processes necessary to make funds available”, adding that “they have failed to do so to date.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“Our administration is actively in court fighting against the Trump administration’s efforts to yank food assistance away from Wisconsin’s kids, families and seniors and we are eager for the court to resolve this issue by directing the Trump administration to comply with court orders and provide the certainty to the many Wisconsin families and businesses who rely on FoodShare,” Evers said.Maura Healey, the Democratic governor of Massachusetts, also condemned the directive in a statement on Sunday, saying: “If President Trump wants to penalize states for preventing Americans from going hungry, we will see him in court.”“Massachusetts residents with funds on their cards should continue to spend it on food” she said. “These funds were processed in accordance with guidance we received from the Trump Administration and a lower court order, and they were processed before the Supreme Court order on Friday night.”“President Trump should be focusing on reopening the government that he controls instead of repeatedly fighting to take away food from American families,” she added.Amy Klobuchar, a Democratic senator for Minnesota, also criticized the memo, saying that “cruelty is the point”, adding: “It is their choice to do this.”Associated Press and Reuters contributed reporting More

    • 188 Shares125 Views

      in US Politics

      US supreme court allows Trump to block passport sex markers for trans and non-binary people

      by

      The supreme court on Thursday allowed Donald Trump’s administration to enforce a policy blocking transgender and non-binary people from choosing passport sex markers that align with their gender identity.The decision by the high court’s conservative majority is Trump’s latest win on the high court’s emergency docket, and it means his administration can enforce the policy while a lawsuit over it plays out. It halts a lower-court order requiring the government to keep letting people choose male, female or X on their passport to line up with their gender identity on new or renewed passports.Pam Bondi, the US attorney general, hailed the decision, saying in a post on X: “Today’s stay allows the government to require citizens to list their biological sex on their passport. In other words: there are two sexes, and our attorneys will continue fighting for that simple truth.”Meanwhile, the court’s three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson calling the decision a “pointless but painful perversion”.She added: “Such senseless sidestepping of the obvious equitable out-come has become an unfortunate pattern. So, too, has my own refusal to look the other way when basic principles are selectively discarded. This Court has once again paved the way for the immediate infliction of injury without adequate (or, really, any) justification.“What the Government needs (and what it does not have) is an explanation for why it faces harm unless the President’s chosen policy is implemented now. It suggests that there is an urgent foreign policy interest in dictating sex markers on passports, but does not elaborate as to what that interest might possibly be,” Jackson wrote.“As is also becoming routine, this court misunderstands the assignment,” she added.The state department changed its passport rules after Trump, a Republican, handed down an executive order in January declaring the United States would “recognize two sexes, male and female”, based on birth certificates and “biological classification”.Transgender actor Hunter Schafer, for example, said in February that her new passport had been issued with a male gender marker, even though she’s marked female on her driver’s license and passport for years.The plaintiffs argue that passports limited to the sex listed on a birth certificate can spark harassment or even violence for transgender people.“By classifying people based on sex assigned at birth and exclusively issuing sex markers on passports based on that sex classification, the State Department deprives plaintiffs of a usable identification document and the ability to travel safely,” attorneys wrote in court documents.Sex markers began appearing on passports in the mid-1970s and the federal government started allowing them to be changed with medical documentation in the early 1990s, the plaintiffs said in court documents. A 2021 change under Joe Biden, a Democrat, removed documentation requirements and allowed non-binary people to choose an X gender marker after years of litigation.A judge blocked the Trump administration policy in June after a lawsuit from non-binary and transgender people, some of whom said they were afraid to submit applications. An appeals court left the judge’s order in place.Solicitor general D John Sauer then turned to the supreme court, pointing to its recent ruling upholding a ban on transition-related health care for transgender minors. He also argued Congress gave the president control over passports, which overlap with his authority over foreign affairs.“It is hard to imagine a system less conducive to accurate identification than one in which anyone can refuse to identify his or her sex and withhold relevant identifying information for any reason, or can rely on a mutable sense of self-identification,” Sauer wrote in court documents.Since taking office in January, Trump has ramped up attacks against LGTBQ+ communities across the country. In October, his administration threatened to pause federal funding unless states remove references to gender identity and the existence of transgender and non-binary people from a federal sex education program.At least 11 states and two territories acquiesced to Trump’s demands. Meanwhile, 16 states and Washington DC sued the administration over the demand.The Associated Press contributed reporting More

    • 163 Shares126 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s supreme court strategy is to redefine ‘tariffs’. Will the justices buy it?

      by

      Donald Trump faced arguably the biggest test so far of his contentious use of executive power at the US supreme court on Wednesday. The stakes could not be higher – “literally, LIFE OR DEATH” for the US, at least according to the president.Trump’s signature, globe-rattling economic policy, his sweeping tariffs regime, was in the dock – specifically, the legal mechanism his administration has used to enforce it. And the man dispatched to defend the White House put forward a somewhat puzzling argument.“These are regulatory tariffs,” D John Sauer, US solicitor general, assured the court. “They are not revenue-raising tariffs. The fact that they raise revenue is only incidental.”It was a curious, and more than a little confusing, explanation – tariffs on goods from overseas might raise revenue, but are not revenue-raising – designed to counter rulings by lower courts that set the stage for this test before the highest court in the land.A federal appeals court in Washington DC ruled in August that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law Trump invoked to impose many of his tariffs, did not grant “the power to tax” to the president.Congress is granted sole authority under the constitution to levy taxes. Trump bypassed Congress – lawfully, his aides insist – to drive through a policy estimated to equate to the largest tax hike since 1993.Thus, on Wednesday morning, the administration appeared to argue before the supreme court that these tariffs – taxes paid by myriad US companies on imported products – were not really taxes at all.Critics are not having it. “Anybody can look up in the dictionary,” Maria Cantwell, Democratic senator from Washington, told the Guardian. “Tariffs are an import tax, plain and simple. I would assume the administration understands that.”“I actually am surprised that it was so lacking,” Cantwell added, of the administration’s case.The court did not appear persuaded, either. “You want to say tariffs are not taxes,” said the liberal justice Sonia Sotomayor. “But that’s exactly what they are.”Some conservatives on the bench also sounded skeptical. “The vehicle is the imposition of taxes on Americans, and that has always been a core power of Congress,” said the chief justice John Roberts.The administration’s argument that the fact tariffs raise money is “only incidental” might be more persuasive if the president spent less time boasting about the amount of money they raised. “My tariffs are bringing in hundreds of billions of dollars,” Trump declared in a speech hours after the hearing.The president has argued – in typically binary terms – that the fate of his flagship economic strategy is aligned with that of the nation. But there are many business owners in the US, grappling with the abrupt imposition of steep tariffs, who believe the fate of their companies has been jeopardized by this regime.While official statistics (at least, those published before the government shutdown) have shown persisting inflation and a stalling jobs market, Trump continues to erroneously claim his agenda is producing stellar results. “Our Economy is BOOMING, and Costs are coming way down,” he wrote on social media during Wednesday’s hearing.It is ultimately down to voters, as some did on Tuesday, to deliver their verdict on Trump’s agenda. For now, a handful of small firms, together with a dozen states, have joined forces to challenge the way in which he has rammed it through.“We think that this case is really about executive overreach,” said Stephen Woldenberg, senior vice-president of sales at Learning Resources, a toy company based near Chicago that sued the administration to invalidate Trump’s tariffs as exceeding his authority.At the heart of this case is really a “broader issue”, according to Woldenberg, of who sets taxes – and how – across the US. “We weren’t really willing to let politicians, and really a single politician, decide our fate,” he said.That fate is now in the hands of a court Trump has shaped. The justices have pledged to fast-track their decision. On Wednesday, at least, most sounded unpersuaded by the administration’s defense. More

    • 163 Shares118 Views

      in US Politics

      US supreme court to hear oral arguments on legality of Trump imposing tariffs

      by

      Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs on the world will be scrutinized by the US supreme court today, a crucial legal test of the president’s controversial economic strategy – and his power.Justices are scheduled to hear oral arguments today on the legality of using emergency powers to impose tariffs on almost every US trading partner.In a series of executive orders issued earlier this year, Trump cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, a 1977 law which in some circumstances grants the president authority to regulate or prohibit international transactions during a national emergency, as he slapped steep duties on imports into the US.The supreme court – controlled by a rightwing supermajority that was crafted by Trump – will review whether IEEPA grants the president the authority to levy a tariff, a word not mentioned in the law. Congress is granted sole authority under the constitution to levy taxes. The court has until the end of its term, in July 2026, to issue a ruling on the case.Lower courts have ruled against Trump’s tariffs, prompting appeals from the Trump administration, setting up this latest test of Trump’s presidential power. The supreme court has largely sided with the administration through its shadow docket to overrule lower courts.Should the supreme court ultimately rule against Trump’s use of IEEPA to impose tariffs, it will force the White House to go back to the drawing board and reconsider how to enforce an aggressive economic policy which has strained global trade ties.Should the court side with the administration, however, it will embolden a president who has repeatedly claimed – despite warnings over the risk of higher prices – that tariffs will help make America great again, raising “trillions” of dollars for the federal government and revitalizing its industrial heartlands.Trump himself has argued the court’s decision is immensely important. The case is “one of the most important in the History of the Country”, he wrote on social media over the weekend, claiming that ruling against him would leave the US “defenseless”.“If we win, we will be the Richest, Most Secure Country anywhere in the World, BY FAR,” Trump claimed. “If we lose, our Country could be reduced to almost Third World status – Pray to God that that doesn’t happen!”But some of his senior officials have suggested that, if the court rules against their current strategy, they will find another way to impose tariffs. Treasury secretary Scott Bessent, who plans to attend the oral arguments in the case, has said the administration has “lots of other authorities” to do so.According to the non-partisan Tax Foundation, Trump’s tariffs amount to an average tax increase per US household of $1,200 in 2025 and $1,600 in 2026.A coalition of 12 states and small businesses, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Vermont, have sued the Trump administration to block the tariffs.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionSeveral other small businesses also filed suit against the Trump administration to block the tariffs. The cases, Learning Resources, Inc v Trump and Trump v VOS Selections, were consolidated by the court.“No one person should have the power to impose taxes that have such vast global economic consequences,” Jeffrey Schwab, Liberty Justice Center’s senior counsel, said in a statement on the lawsuit filed on behalf of small businesses against the tariffs. “The Constitution gives the power to set tax rates – including tariffs – to Congress, not the President.”About 40 legal briefs have been filed in opposition to the tariffs, including from the US Chamber of Commerce, the largest business lobby group in the US.The US Chamber has urged Congress to reclaim its constitutional role in setting tariffs, stating in a letter on 27 October to the US Senate: “American families are facing thousands of dollars in higher prices as a result of these increased taxes. Small businesses, manufacturers, and ranchers are struggling with higher costs, with additional economic pain likely in the coming months.”The US Senate voted 51 to 47 last week to nullify Trump’s so-called reciprocal tariffs, with four Republicans joining Democrats in the vote, though the House is not expected to take similar action.But despite opposition in the Senate, the House of Representatives is unlikely to take similar action. House Republicans created a rule earlier this year that will block resolutions on the tariffs from getting a floor vote. More

    • 163 Shares135 Views

      in US Politics

      The ghost of Ronald Reagan has spooked Trump over tariffs | Sidney Blumenthal

      by

      Halloween came early for Donald Trump. Ronald Reagan spooked him. Trump had a startled reaction to the TV ad that appeared during the first game of the World Series, placed by the provincial government of Ontario, featuring excerpts from President Reagan’s radio talk in April 1987 in which he explained the danger of trade wars. “Their Advertisement was to be taken down, IMMEDIATELY, but they let it run last night during the World Series, knowing that it was a FRAUD,” Trump posted. It was, he falsely claimed, a “serious misrepresentation of the facts, and hostile act”. In retaliation, he slapped an additional 10% tariff on Canada.Trump was apparently horrified at the sudden presence of the ghost of conservatism past, who had kept the outlandish bounder at arm’s length and whom Trump regarded warily if not nervously. Reagan was the original, bigger and more successful performer, whose appeal was as the harbinger of morning in America, not the grim reaper of a zombie nightfall. Canada is being punished for Trump’s fright.Trump seemingly fears Reagan’s image might be taken as a warning to the supreme court to rule against him in the impending case of Trump v VOS, in which the basis of his tariff regime is at stake. “Canada is trying to illegally influence the United States Supreme Court in one of the most important rulings in the history of our Country,” Trump claimed.Two courts have already ruled against Trump for his invocation of national security under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs on whomever he wishes without the approval of the Congress. In late May, the US court of international trade held that most of Trump’s tariffs were “contrary to law”. He appealed to the US court of appeals for the federal circuit, which on 29 August affirmed the CIT ruling. The appeals court observed that “tariffs are a core Congressional power”. The IEEPA does not explicitly grant the president the authority to impose tariffs. Even if the IEEPA were interpreted to allow tariffs, it would represent an unconstitutional delegation of Congress’s power to the president.Twice rebuffed, Trump has appealed to the supreme court. The argument is scheduled for 5 November. Trump’s hair-trigger response to the sudden appearance of Reagan’s shade revealed his deep unease with how the court might rule. Even though the court has permitted many of his policies to proceed temporarily without legal justification through the “shadow docket”, he seems to know he might be on shaky ground here. In the tariff case, the amicus briefs against Trump were filed by some of the leading lights of the conservative legal world. Trump accused the appeals court judges of “hatred” and called Leonard Leo, the co-chair of the Federalist Society, which provided Trump with the lists of nominees for judgeships, a “sleazebag”. Trump is clearly afraid.On 15 October Trump announced that he might attend the oral arguments in person, to become the first sitting president ever to witness a supreme court case. Trump apparently has no concern about tainting the perception of the court’s objectivity or legitimacy. Either the court works for him or it does not; the justices fall in line or they are among the enemies within. To Trump, the Republican court should be no different from the Department of Justice under his thumb. He evidently views the separation of powers as a personal affront, unfairly stealing from him. Everything is a zero-sum game, not just international trade. “I’m the speaker and the president,” Trump has joked, according to the New York Times.Trump’s appearance in the sanctum of the court would let them know who’s the real chief. Just as the attorney general, Pam Bondi, and her deputy, Todd Blanche, sat behind Emil Bove, Trump’s henchman and nominee for the federal appeals bench, as Bove faced the senators at his confirmation hearing, Trump could sit behind his solicitor general, D John Sauer, to glower at the black-robed justices. His presence would threaten to strip away the veneer of the court’s independence as well as show his distrust for his own lawyer’s ability to prevail on the merits. Whether he wins or loses the case, he has personalized it. Winning would be interpreted as a victory for intimidation; losing would be flouting him rather than ruling on the merits. Either way, he would be poison and the decision would be, as it is said in the law, the fruit of the poisonous tree.Trump has been losing his case so far because of his transparently weak and sham argument, part economic illiteracy and part glaring cynicism, though there is a blurred line with Trump. Granting Trump his boneheaded economics, assuming he’s just a crude real estate operator who does not know the most basic things about international trade, may lend his primitivism a patina of dumb clumsy earnestness. Contrary to Trump’s stubborn ignorance, however, trade deficits are not a mercantilist zero-sum game and tariffs are not a tax on foreign countries. His complementary point that he must be able to impose universal tariffs by fiat whenever he likes without congressional authority, the only president ever to grab power for himself unilaterally under the statute in its 50-year history, because of the non sequitur of fentanyl trafficking, is so ridiculously phoney that it colors his whole case as typically dishonest.Trump’s snap imposition of 50% tariffs on Brazil for its supreme court’s judgment convicting his ally the former president Jair Bolsonaro of an attempted coup and Trump’s additional 10% tariff on Canada in his fit of pique at the Reagan TV ad may only serve to undermine his already tenuous argument that he is compelled to usurp sole power based on the IEEPA in the interest of national security. His tantrums are gifts to the opposing attorney, who may well hold them up as obvious refutations of his claims.In advance of Trump’s date with the court, he has raced around Asia tossing concessions which he hails as victories. Dropping the tariff rates for Japan, South Korea and China, while Beijing lifted its retaliatory threats to withhold rare earth minerals and stop purchasing American soybeans, he has to that extent reduced the harm he alone has been responsible for inflicting.The previously perfectly submissive Republican Congress has begun to crack up in reaction to the stress that Trump’s policies have placed on the rural Republican base. In symbolic votes, five GOP senators joined Democrats to oppose Trump’s tariffs on Brazil and four voted against his tariffs on Canada. The Republicans are in an uproar, following American ranchers, over his approval of importation of more Argentinian beef, apparently as a favor to his rightwing ally Javier Milei, to whom he has also authorized the payment of $20bn in support of the waning Argentinian currency. While Trump has grudgingly acknowledged that he cannot run for a third term, the Republican members of the Congress still have to face the music.The illegality of his tariffs aside, Trump’s retreat reveals the lasting damage he has already done to the US economy, his enhancement of Chinese power and his alienation of our allies, and it exposes his performance as a pantomime strongman on the world stage. Though some of his tariffs will be reduced, even those that remain stand at an unprecedented level in living memory.“Consumers face an overall average effective tariff rate of 17.9%, the highest since 1934,” the Yale Budget Lab reports. For small businesses, which account for one-third of US trade, 78% expect higher costs, and, unable to absorb them, 71% anticipate needing to pass them on as price increases. The Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development projects that as a result of Trump’s tariffs the US Gross Domestic Product growth rate will fall from 2.8% in 2024 to 1.5% in 2026 – a decline of nearly half.Trump’s atavistic return to the Republican protectionism of the 1930s, which deepened the Great Depression, rejects the lessons that Ronald Reagan sought to teach. “The memory of all this occurring back in the 30s made me determined when I came to Washington to spare the American people the protectionist legislation that destroys prosperity,” Reagan, the former New Dealer, said in the speech that enraged Trump enough to punish Canada for reviving it.Reagan’s talk was a prophetic warning of the peril of Trump’s tariffs: “You see, at first, when someone says, ‘Let’s impose tariffs on foreign imports,’ it looks like they’re doing the patriotic thing by protecting American products and jobs. And sometimes for a short while it works – but only for a short time … High tariffs inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries and the triggering of fierce trade wars … Then the worst happens: markets shrink and collapse; businesses and industries shut down; and millions of people lose their jobs.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTrump’s relationship with Reagan was always uneasy. Throughout the 1980s, he sought Reagan’s imprimatur. In 1983, Reagan was asked to send a congratulatory telegram on the opening of Trump Tower. A few years later, Trump invited the president to attend a LaToya Jackson concert at his Taj Mahal Hotel and Casino at Atlantic City. Several attempts to edge close to Reagan were rejected, according to the Washington Post. The White House counsel’s office wrote “NO” on the telegram request. Offering advice on calling Trump, Reagan’s political director advised, “He has a large ego” – “large” was underlined.Nancy and Ronald Reagan lavished attention on the wealthy, but Trump was apparently too vulgar. It seems not even Trump’s lawyer, Roy Cohn, who was close to Nancy Reagan, could gain him access. Finally, Trump got himself invited to a social event at the White House, stood in the photo line and took a standard picture shaking hands with the president, and received the signed picture. Unfortunately, it was signed from “Reagan Reagan”. A corrected photo was sent, but Trump featured the original image as a token of his significance in The Art of the Deal.In that book, published in 1987, Trump suggested that Reagan was a hollow construct, “so smooth, so effective a performer” that “only now, seven years later, are people beginning to question whether there’s anything beneath that smile”. That year Trump briefly considered his first run for the presidency. He made a foray into New Hampshire and bought full-page ads in the New York Times, Washington Post and Boston Globe scathingly attacking Reagan for weakness. His “Open Letter” stated, “There’s nothing wrong with America’s Foreign Defense Policy that a little backbone can’t cure.” He blamed the federal deficit on our alliances. “Make Japan, Saudi Arabia, and others pay for the protection we extend to allies,” he wrote. “Let’s not let our great country be laughed at anymore.” It was the complaint he would retail for decades regardless of the circumstances. At the bottom, the ads reproduced his squiggly signature, nearly identical to the one on the lewd birthday card to Jeffrey Epstein that he denies he ever wrote. Now, “Reagan Reagan” has returned to haunt him.There’s a twist characteristic of the Trump era. If Trump loses his tariff case, the duties collected from companies will have to be refunded. The Wall Street financial firm of Cantor Fitzgerald reportedly anticipates a market on the rights to the tariff refunds. Its former head Howard Lutnick is the secretary of commerce, and his sons now run the firm. A Cantor Fitzgerald subsidiary is offering 20% to 30% in cash upfront rather than wait for litigation to resolve the claims, according to Wired magazine. In exchange, the company would eventually get the full refund. But if Trump prevails, the claims would be worthless. A spokesperson for Cantor Fitzgerald calls the report “absolutely false”, saying in a statement that it is “not in the business of positioning any risk, taking views or facilitating business in litigation claims involving the legality of US tariffs”.In August, however, the senators Ron Wyden and Elizabeth Warren sent a letter on 13 August to Brandon Lutnick, Cantor Fitzgerald’s CEO, seeking information. “Given that one of the purported architects of President Trump’s tariff policy is Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, your father and the former Chairman and CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald, LP, the firm’s actions raise obvious conflict-of-interest and insider dealing concerns.”The senators inquired: “Has anyone at Cantor or Cantor Fitzgerald, LP communicated with any individual representing the Administration’s interest or working on the court cases on these matters? If so, please provide a list of all such conversations, including the date, the individuals involved, and the nature of the conversation.”A spokesperson for the commerce department stated in an email to Wired, “Secretary Lutnick knows nothing about this decision because he has no insight or strategic control over Cantor Fitzgerald.” He remains busy working on Trump’s tariffs. This article was amended on 4 November 2025 to add a response from Cantor Fitzgerald to the Wired report.

      Sidney Blumenthal, former senior adviser to Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, has published three books of a projected five-volume political life of Abraham Lincoln: A Self-Made Man, Wrestling With His Angel and All the Powers of Earth. He is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 213 Shares136 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump is toying with a third term. Don’t expect the constitution to stop him | Moira Donegan

      by

      The news cycle has continued in a predictable arc. Last week, Steve Bannon, the far-right provocateur and one-time Donald Trump adviser, said in an interview with the Economist that the president would seek an unconstitutional third term. “Trump is going to be president in 28, and people ought to just get accommodated with that,” Bannon said. (He seemed to be referring to Trump winning the presidential election in 2028 – Trump’s current term will last through 20 January 2029.) “At the appropriate time, we’ll lay out what the plan is.”Like clockwork, Trump commented on the idea soon after, telling reporters following him on Air Force One as he flew from Kuala Lumpur to Tokyo: “I would love to do it.”Initially, he said: “I haven’t really thought about it. But I have the best poll numbers I’ve ever had.” (This is not true; Trump’s approval has sunk considerably, with a new poll released this week showing him at a net -19 point approval rating, the lowest of his second term.) Still, Trump said he would be legally able to run again in a scheme in which he was placed on the ticket as a vice-presidential nominee, only for the puppet placed in the presidential slot to resign once taking office, thereby granting him the presidency. But he suggested that he would prefer to run himself, casting aspersion on the vice-presidential campaign option. “I don’t think people would like that,” he said. “It would be too cute, it wouldn’t be right.” In fact, it would also be unconstitutional, violating the 12th amendment’s prohibition on anyone ineligible for the presidency to be elected as vice-president.In a notable departure from his being loath to disagree with the president about anything at all, the House speaker, Mike Johnson, on Tuesday seemed to pour water on the idea of a third Trump term, noting, correctly, that such an outcome is barred by the constitution. “Well, there’s the 22nd amendment,” he noted. Johnson said that Trump was “trolling” his political enemies; analysis at CNN and the New York Times suggests that Trump is using the third-term comments in part to mute awareness of his own lame-duck status.Johnson is correct that the plain language of the constitution prevents Trump from getting what he says he wants in a third term. But we are in a moment when the plain language of the constitution is being subverted, ignored and read with shocking bad faith by the rightwing legal establishment, from law professors to justices of the supreme court, who have seemed eager to nullify parts of the constitution in order to expand Trump’s prerogatives and indulge his whims. How else but as an attack on the constitutional order are we supposed to understand, to cite just one example, the supreme court’s decision to allow Trump to proceed with his dismantling of the Department of Education – a body created by Congress, which only Congress has the power to dissolve? The prohibition posed by the constitution against a third Trump term does not seem like an especially robust defense in an era when the constitution is effectively being rewritten to grant Trump ever more power, with ever fewer opportunities for accountability. The constitution, after all, is just a piece of paper. And of the nine jurists tasked with settling on its authoritative interpretation, six of them are in the tank for a man hostile to its principles.If obviating the plain and obvious language of the 22nd amendment seems like too embarrassing a move even for this degraded and servile supreme court, consider what the court is already looking to do to the 14th amendment. The plain reading of the amendment, which has been understood and implemented in exactly one way for the past 157 years, is that the constitution confers citizenship to all persons born within the United States – what is called birthright citizenship. But after the Trump administration issued an executive order purporting to nullify this constitutional provision, the supreme court intervened to allow the order to go into effect, and made an unprecedented move to prevent lower courts from easily blocking it.The justices were provided cover, and a degree of plausible deniability, by right-leaning law professors, who had responded to the Maga movement’s calls to end birthright citizenship by assembling a legal literature that claims – through strained, misstated, far-fetched and outright wrong readings of the historical and legal record – that there is a longstanding controversy about the meaning of the 14th amendment’s citizenship clause. There is not. But their papers have created a veneer of intellectual credibility and a pretext for the Trump administration to do what it wants to do anyway: ignore the constitution. (In a briefing filed to the supreme court, asking it to sanction Trump’s attack on citizenship, the Trump administration alludes to “[a] growing body of modern scholarship”, and cites Trump-aligned scholars whose work claiming to limit birthright citizenship the administration’s own actions had provoked.) When the supreme court finally rules on the constitutionality of Trump’s order and the future of birthright citizenship is determined, what these law professors say may well matter more than what the constitution does.And this is why the notion that Trump “can’t” run for a third term, merely because such a thing is unconstitutional, may be a bit naive, or insufficiently alert to the degree to which the American constitutional order has already collapsed. What is and is not constitutional is determined, in effect, by Trump loyalists on the court; they already have an infrastructure of bad-faith enablers who will help them launder their efforts to empower him with flimsy pretenses of legal justifiability. And we already know, too, what happens when the law says that Trump must leave office, but he doesn’t want to. Events have long since made clear that the law is no check on Trump’s power. He’ll have to be stopped by the people instead: not with a lawsuit, but with a movement.

      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Rogue president’: growing number of US judges push back against Trump

      by

      US district and appeals courts are increasingly rebuking Donald Trump’s radical moves on tackling crime, illegal immigration and other actions where administration lawyers or Trump have made sweeping claims of emergencies that judges have bluntly rejected as erroneous and undermining the rule of law in America.Legal scholars and ex-judges note that strong court pushback has come from judges appointed by Republicans, including Trump himself, and Democrats, and signify that the administration’s factual claims and expanding executive powers face stiff challenges that have slowed some extreme policies.Among the toughest rulings were ones this month by Judge Karin Immergut in Oregon and Judge April Perry in Chicago. Both district judges sharply challenged Trump’s plans to deploy national guard troops to deal with minimal violence that Trump had portrayed as akin to “war” zones, spurring the judges to impose temporary restraining orders.Immergut, whom Trump nominated for the court in his first term, rejected Trump’s depiction of Portland as “war-ravaged”, and in need of saving from “Antifa and other domestic terrorists” concluding that the “president’s determination was simply untethered to the facts”. But a court of appeals ruled on 20 October that Trump could send national guard troops to the city.Elsewhere, district judge William Young in Boston issued a scathing 161-page ruling last month calling some of Trump’s deportation policies illegal efforts to deport non-citizen activists at colleges in violation of their first amendment rights “under the cover of an unconstitutionally broad definition of antisemitism”. Young was nominated by Ronald Reagan.Some former appeals court judges say that the district courts and courts of appeals are responding appropriately to a pattern of unlawful conduct by Trump and his top deputies.“The president and attorney general are openly contemptuous of the constitution and laws of the United States and of the federal courts, and the arguments they make to the courts mirror that personal contempt,” said retired court of appeals judge J Michael Luttig. “The federal district courts and the courts of appeals well understand that and they are going to have none of it.”View image in fullscreenRecent court rulings reveal a pattern of strong judicial rebukes to the Trump administration from district and appeals courts on multiple issues since Trump took office again, which the legal news and analysis site Just Security has documented.A Just Security study, which was spearheaded by New York University law professor Ryan Goodman, revealed that courts’ distrust of government information and representations hit over 40 cases as of 15 October versus 35 cases in mid-September. Similarly, it noted that courts’ findings of “arbitrary and capricious” administrative action totaled 58 cases on 15 October versus 52 in mid-September. The study showed courts’ concerns over noncompliance with judicial orders totaled over 20 cases as of 15 October up from 15 cases a month before.But despite the growing number of strong lower court rulings against the administration, some may well get reversed by the supreme court given its 6-3 conservative majority, and its rulings that have markedly expanded presidential powers.Nonetheless, legal scholars and ex-federal judges stress that recent district court rulings against Trump’s radical policies are grounded in fact and reveal profound scepticism about a number of the administration’s sweeping legal claims.“US district judges have the responsibility to determine the relevant facts before applying the law. Accordingly, the credibility of a party and its counsel are immensely important,” said former federal judge John Jones, who is now president of Dickinson College.“Simply put, the president’s reputation for hyperbole that lapses into outright lies precedes him in these cases, and judges are increasingly refusing to take the administration’s rationale for its actions at face value.”For example, Perry called the Department of Homeland Security’s depiction of events in Chicago “simply unreliable” with a “lack of credibility”. She noted that state and local law enforcement contradicted the case for deploying the national guard and Trump’s assertion that it was a “war zone”, and warned that using the guard could fuel “civil unrest”.Days later, the seventh circuit court of appeals upheld Perry’s ruling that denied a White House request to deploy national guard troops on Chicago streets in response to a lawsuit brought by the city of Chicago and Illinois.But on Friday the Trump administration asked the supreme court to pause those rulings and permit Trump to deploy troops in Illinois, boosting efforts to send the national guard into the Chicago area.Elsewhere, on Monday a three-judge appeals court panel ruled 2-1 that the Trump administration can send the national guard to Portland, lifting Immergut’s ruling and allowing some 200 federalized guard troops to be sent to the city to protect federal buildings.Responding to the ruling, Oregon’s attorney general said if the decision is allowed to stand Trump would have “unilateral power to put Oregon soldiers on our streets with almost no justification”.More broadly, scholars and other experts voice strong criticism of the administration’s legal claims.“Trump is abusing the laws that authorize domestic military deployment in a crisis, and the courts are starting to push back,” said Liza Goitein, the Brennan Center’s senior director of liberty and national security.“In the United States, federal armed forces cannot be used to execute the law except when civilian authorities have been completely overwhelmed. As judges in Oregon and Illinois have recognized, the facts on the ground simply don’t justify deployment of the military.“A court could reach the opposite conclusion only by extending a dangerous level of deference to the president, effectively giving him free rein to use the military as a domestic police force. That would be contrary to American principles and traditions, and it would pose a grave threat to democracy and individual liberty.”Not surprisingly, some recent rulings by district judges have outraged Maga world and top Trump officials, who have decried them in incendiary terms. The White House deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, called Immergut’s ruling “legal insurrection”, which some analysts worry could incite violence.Trump, too, fired back at Immergut’s ruling. “I wasn’t served well by the people who pick judges,” Trump told reporters soon after the ruling, seemingly forgetting he had nominated her, and then misidentifying her sex. “Portland is burning to the ground … That judge ought to be ashamed of himself.”Trump’s attacks on Immergut and earlier dust-ups with judges who ruled against the administration were advanced this month by El Salvador’s authoritarian leader Nayib Bukele, who urged the Trump administration to emulate his policies and impeach “corrupt judges”.“If you don’t impeach the corrupt judges, you CANNOT fix the country,” Bukele tweeted, sparking multi-billionaire and Maga ally Elon Musk to retweet it as “essential”.But legal experts say the ruling by Immergut and other district judges who have pushed back hard against administration policies are fully warranted and reasonable, given extreme moves by Trump on immigration, crime and other fronts they deem unjustified or illegal.“I think the strong district court response in these contexts is striking,” said Columbia law professor Gillian Metzger. “It’s occurring in other Trump contexts as well – for example, the administration’s efforts to deny appropriated funding or target law firms – but immigration enforcement and calling out the national guard are traditional executive areas where you’d expect the president to get deference.”Metzger said: “Judges are perceiving an administration that is asserting power in novel ways and at odds with basic norms and longstanding practices – eg, employing the national guard in a partisan fashion over the objections of state and local leaders, deploying Ice officers in aggressive ways, etc – and at times violating governing statutes.”Other legal scholars go further.“The problem is not rogue judges, but a rogue president. The problem is not what judges are doing but what the president is doing,” said former Massachusetts judge Nancy Gertner, who now teaches law at Harvard.Gertner pointed in particular to Young’s ruling in a deportation case involving efforts by the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security to deport pro-Palestinian non-citizen students and professors who protested against Israel’s actions in Gaza.In his ruling, Young wrote that Trump’s conduct violated his oath to “preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States” and the actions of his administration represented a “full-throated assault on the first amendment”.Gertner noted that the “case involved sending people to countries without due process. We gave due process to people involved with the September 11 attacks. Sending people to countries where they had no relatives, NO TIES, was a flagrant violation of law.“What the Trump administration has been doing is so unprecedented and so far from normal and so illegal it makes sense that judges have issued injunctions stopping them.”Luttig stressed: “The judges of the United States will not be threatened and intimidated by this president and this attorney general. They will continue to honor their oaths to the constitution, which means the president and attorney general can expect loss after loss after loss, at least before the nation’s lower federal courts.” More

    • 188 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      The US supreme court appears ready to nullify the Voting Rights Act | Moira Donegan

      by

      The last remaining piece of the 1965 Voting Rights Act – section 2, which empowers the federal government to protect voters from racial gerrymandering meant to dilute Black political power – appears headed for an untimely end. At oral arguments in Louisiana v Callais on Wednesday, the US supreme court appeared ready to strike down section 2, effectively completing the gradual nullification of the Voting Rights Act that it has pursued for over a decade.The case stems from new congressional districting maps that were drawn in Louisiana after the 2020 census, which found both that the state was eligible for six seats in the House of Representatives and that its population was about one-third Black. The state initially drew maps that featured only one majority-Black congressional district, rejecting seven more racially fair maps; voters sued, and federal courts ordered Louisiana to comply with the Voting Rights Act by drawing new maps in which Black voters would be a majority in a second district, thereby reflecting their share of the population and giving Black Louisianans an equal opportunity to elect representatives of their choice.But now, a group of people identifying themselves as “non-African-American voters” have sued to get those racially proportionate maps thrown out, arguing that enforcement of the VRA violates their own rights under the 14th and 15th amendments. They claim the maps drawn to remedy racial discrimination against Black people in fact constitute racial discrimination against non-Black (read: white) people. The court seems likely to side with them.If they do, it will mark the end of the Voting Rights Act, widely considered the crowning achievement of the civil right movement, which the supreme court, under John Roberts, has been dismantling for years. In 2013’s Shelby county v Holder, the court struck down much of section 5, which had required jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination in voting to get federal preclearance for changes to its voting laws.In subsequent cases, the court has repeatedly narrowed the conditions under which litigants can bring voting rights claims and expanded states’ leeway to make voting laws that would have previously been deemed discriminatory. Writing for the majority in Shelby, Chief Justice Roberts claimed that racial animus and inequality had diminished enough that such a regime was not necessary, and indeed violated the rights of states. As states imposed a slew of new voting restrictions in the aftermath, the gap between Black and white voter participation rates grew dramatically. It expanded twice as much in districts that had previously been subjected to the section 5 preclearance regime.On Wednesday, the court seemed determined to apply the same logic that it used in Shelby county to section 2, demanding that Janai Nelson, the head of the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund, justify why section 2 should still be efficacious and should not be considered to have somehow expired. Justices Kavanaugh and Alito asserted that the racial gerrymander was justified if it was intended as a partisan gerrymander – that is, that the lawmakers’ stated or professed intentions was what mattered, and not the racially discriminatory impact of the gerrymander.Previous supreme court precedent, as well as ample evidence from the congressional record, has said that discriminatory impact, rather than intent, is sufficient to constitute illegal racial discrimination – but at oral argument, the Republicans on the court, along with those representing the litigants, did not seem to think that this should matter. As she rebutted these arguments in the guise of asking questions from the bench, one could hear the exhaustion in Ketanji Brown Jackson’s voice. The remedies, she sputtered, “are so tied up with race, because race is the initial problem!” Jackson has been the court’s most passionate and articulate advocate for the Reconstruction amendments and for the legacy of the civil rights movement, but she seemed to know that her colleagues were not listening to her.The case reflects two major trends of the Roberts court: hostility to racial justice claims brought by minorities, and a willingness to invert civil rights law and the Reconstruction amendments alike to create interpretations in which these legal traditions function to entrench, rather than challenge, historical hierarchies of race and gender. Louisiana’s attorney general – who has switched sides in the case since it was initially argued last year, joining an opposition to the Voting Rights Act – claimed that to assume that Black voters would vote differently than white voters – which in Louisiana, they overwhelmingly do – would be to unconstitutionally impose a racial stereotype. This facile fiction elicited exasperation from Justice Kagan.But the attorney general knew his audience. Roberts has long been an enemy of practices that attempt to remedy historical and ongoing racial discrimination, claiming that the law mandates that state and private actors alike take no interest in such projects and attempt facially race-blind policies in everything from voting rights enforcement to college admissions – no matter how racially discriminatory against Black Americans such practices prove to be in reality. “The way to stop discriminating on the basis of race,” he once memorably said, “is to stop discriminating on the basis of race” – that is, to stop trying to account for or combat racism with official policy. The result will be that if the court rules in Louisiana’s favor, it will no longer be illegal, in practice, to racially gerrymander congressional districts to minimize and dilute Black voter power. But it will be illegal to use race to redistrict in such a way that restores Black voter power.It is apparently through this fanciful and motivated reasoning that Roberts and his colleagues have decided that any move to secure Black Americans’ voting rights and equality in fact violates the very constitutional amendments that were meant to secure their voting rights and equality. The Voting Rights Act does not violate the 15th amendment; it enforces it, and gave the United States, during the 60 years or so of its enactment, its only plausible claim to being a real democracy. To say that the VRA contradicts the 15th amendment is more than just bad reasoning. It is bad faith. But bad faith, increasingly, is what the supreme court operates under.If the supreme court rules in favor of the “non-African-American” voters and vacates what is left of the Voting Rights Act, as they are expected to, then a decision will probably come down sometime in June, just a few months before the November 2026 midterms. The resulting racial gerrymanders are expected to net Republicans 19 House seats.

      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist More