“Chief Justice John Roberts on Wednesday night granted a respite to the Trump administration as it seeks to keep billions of dollars in foreign aid frozen, despite a judge’s order directing the administration to resume payments immediately.
Roberts’ intervention heads off the possibility of administration officials being held in contempt for failing to comply with the order from U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, who imposed a deadline of 11:59 p.m. Wednesday for the federal government to pay nearly $2 billion in unpaid invoices from foreign-aid contractors.”
…
“Ali, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, ordered the administration on Tuesday to pay the accumulated bills by the end of the day on Wednesday. The judge acted after finding that the Trump administration had essentially flouted earlier orders he issued requiring the State Department to lift a blanket freeze on overseas aid programs.
Rather than take steps to unfreeze that aid, as Ali had directed Feb. 13, the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development found new legal rationales to keep it on hold, the judge said.
As a result, Ali gave the administration the midnight Wednesday deadline to send the payments for what officials have estimated is $2 billion-worth of unpaid work completed by aid contractors.”
LC: Basically, the Trump administration flouted the courts, the law, and the separation of powers, and Roberts bailed them out rather than forcing the issue. Under Trump, the U.S. constitutional system is deeply degrading.
“When Trump imposed tariffs during his first term, he cited authority under other laws, like the Trade Act of 1974 and the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. At one point he threatened to invoke the IEEPA to impose tariffs on Mexican goods, but he never followed through, perhaps amid concern it would have been seen as legally dubious.
That’s because the IEEPA is typically used to impose sanctions — not tariffs — on other countries.
But Trump’s decision to use the IEEPA this time, when he’s aggressively flexing his executive authority, may be no accident: Unlike other trade laws, the IEEPA has the fewest procedural requirements and safeguards.
It gives the president the power to regulate or prohibit a broad swath of economic activity in order “to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat” that is based largely outside the United States and concerns “the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.” In the executive orders that announced the tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, Trump invoked the opioid crisis, as well as illegal immigration from Canada and Mexico.”
…
“No president has ever used the IEEPA to impose tariffs before. In fact, the IEEPA was passed as part of a broader effort by Congress in the 1970s to limit the president’s ability to exercise emergency economic powers. The framework ultimately created, however, completely fails to rein in the president, according to Timothy Meyer, a law professor and expert on international trade law. And Trump is taking advantage of that failure by pushing beyond what the Constitution intended.
“This strikes me as unconstitutional,” Meyer told me. “It’s very difficult to see how the framers would’ve thought that it was constitutional for the president to simply have the power on the drop of a hat to impose an across-the-board 25 percent tariff on our major trading partners.”
The Constitution gives Congress the authority to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” Between Trump’s tariffs and his unilateral effort to halt federal spending, he has now effectively claimed that he has both taxing and spending authority — a government all his own. Congress barely even needs to exist in this framework.”
“The question of whether a single federal trial judge should have the power to halt a federal law or policy throughout the entire country is hotly contested. As Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in a 2020 opinion arguing against nationwide injunctions, “there are currently more than 1,000 active and senior district court judges, sitting across 94 judicial districts, and subject to review in 12 regional courts of appeal.” If nationwide injunctions are allowed, any one of these district judges could potentially halt any federal law, even if every other judge in the country disagrees with them.
The problem is particularly acute in Texas’s federal courts (Mazzant sits in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas), where local rules often allow plaintiffs to choose which judge will hear their case. During the Biden administration, Republicans often selected highly partisan judges to hear challenges to liberal federal policies — and those judges frequently rewarded this behavior by issuing nationwide injunctions.
Such injunctions can potentially be lifted by a higher court, but the process of seeking relief from such a court can take weeks or even months — and that’s assuming that the appeals court is inclined to follow the law. Federal cases out of Texas, for example, appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which is dominated by far-right judges who frequently defy Supreme Court precedents that are out of favor with the Republican Party.
Moreover, while some Republican judges such as Gorsuch expressed doubts about these nationwide injunctions, the GOP-controlled Supreme Court frequently let such injunctions against the Biden administration remain in effect for many months — even if a majority of the justices eventually concluded that the policies at issue in those cases, which often involved disputes over immigration policy, were legal. So the Court apparently did not view ending the practice of nationwide injunctions as a high priority so long as those injunctions thwarted Democratic policies.”
“Qualified immunity allows government officials to avoid liability even in cases where courts find that they violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. Defenders of qualified immunity say it protects police from frivolous lawsuits, but in practice it also short-circuits credible allegations of civil rights violations before they ever reach a jury.”
“Beginning in the mid-20th century, the Supreme Court maintained that the Eighth Amendment “must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Thus, as a particular method of punishment grew less common, the Court was increasingly likely to declare it cruel and unusual in violation of the Constitution.
At least some members of the Court’s Republican majority, however, have suggested that this “evolving standards of decency” framework should be abandoned. In Bucklew v. Precythe (2019), the Court considered whether states could use execution methods that risked causing the dying inmate a great deal of pain. Justice Neil Gorsuch’s majority opinion, which held that potentially painful methods of execution are allowed, seems to exist in a completely different universe than the Court’s Eighth Amendment cases that look to evolving standards.
While the Court’s earlier opinions ask whether a particular form of punishment has fallen out of favor today, Gorsuch asked whether a method of punishment was out of favor at the time of the founding. Though his opinion does list some methods of execution, such as “disemboweling” and “burning alive” that violate the Eighth Amendment, Gorsuch wrote that these methods are unconstitutional because “by the time of the founding, these methods had long fallen out of use and so had become ‘unusual.’”
What makes Bucklew confusing, however, is that it didn’t explicitly overrule any of the previous decisions applying the evolving standards framework. So it’s unclear whether all five of the justices who joined that opinion share a desire to blow up more than a half-century of law, or if the justices who joined the Bucklew majority simply failed to rein in an overly ambitious opinion by Gorsuch, the Court’s most intellectually sloppy justice.
In any event, Hamm opens up at least two major potential divides within the Court. Smith says he is intellectually disabled; the state of Alabama wants to execute him anyway. So the case perfectly tees up a challenge to Atkins if a majority of the justices want to go there. Meanwhile, Bucklew looms like a vulture over any cruel and unusual punishment case heard by the Court, as it suggests that the Republican justices may hit the reset button on all of its Eighth Amendment precedents at any time.”
“In fact, most federal criminal prosecutions are immigration, drug and gun cases. The largest numbers of federal inmates are in custody because they were convicted of drug, weapon and sex offenses. The story is similar in state prison systems, where roughly 90 percent of the inmates are in custody because they were convicted of a violent offense, property crime or a drug offense.
The legal system is far from flawless — and plenty of Americans sincerely believe that there are too many laws and regulations in the country — but Gorsuch’s selective and misleadingly presented case studies do not tell us anything particularly useful about it.
To be sure, there are some redeeming features of the book. Gorsuch criticizes occupational licensing requirements, the exorbitant cost of legal services in this country and the ways in which they burden working- and middle-class Americans.
But what’s left out of the book is often just as instructive — if not more so — than what’s in it. His interest in government overreach stops short when it comes to liberal causes.
In an anecdotal book about overzealous prosecutors, there are no stories about people being sent to prison because they mistakenly tried to vote when they weren’t eligible or about laws that make it illegal to give voters water while they wait in line. There are no stories about women being arrested because they had miscarriages, part of the ongoing fallout from the decision by Gorsuch and his fellow Republican appointees to overturn Roe v. Wade.”
“All three of the Court’s Democrats, meanwhile, appeared sympathetic to Glossip’s arguments, and spent much of the case batting down Alito’s proposals to dismiss the case on procedural grounds — though Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson showed some openness to forming an alliance with Thomas to send the case back down to the state courts in order to gather additional evidence.
That leaves Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, conservative Republicans who asked some questions that appeared sympathetic to Glossip, as the wild cards in this case. It is possible that they could provide the fourth and fifth vote to save Glossip’s life, but far from certain.
The alleged constitutional violation that is before the Court — that prosecutors withheld evidence that a key witness has a serious mental illness, and failed to correct this witness when he lied on the stand — is fairly marginal. It turns on four words in handwritten notes by prosecutor Connie Smothermon that were not turned over to Glossip’s lawyers until January 2023. The state agrees with Glossip’s legal team that these four words reveal a sufficiently serious constitutional violation to justify giving him a new trial.
But while this narrow legal issue, which is the only issue before the Supreme Court, is the kind of legal question that reasonable judges could disagree upon, Smothermon’s notes are only one piece of a wide range of evidence suggesting that Glossip’s criminal conviction is unconstitutional: Oklahoma conducted two independent investigations, both of which concluded that Glossip’s trial was fundamentally flawed.
Among other things, those investigations found that Justin Sneed — the man who actually committed the murder at issue here — was pressured by police to implicate Glossip in the crime. They also show that police and the prosecution lost or destroyed evidence that could potentially exonerate Glossip. And they show that police inexplicably did not question potentially important witnesses or search obvious places for evidence.
Now, however, Glossip’s life likely turns upon whether Kavanaugh and Barrett are moved by the procedural arguments pressed by the Court’s right flank, or by the arguments pressed by both Glossip and the state: That four words in Smothermon’s notes reveal a serious constitutional violation.”
“”Criminal laws have grown so exuberantly and come to cover so much previously innocent conduct that almost anyone can be arrested for something,” Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch observed in 2019. Gorsuch elaborates on that theme in his new book Over Ruled, showing how the proliferation of criminal penalties has given prosecutors enormous power to ruin people’s lives, resulting in the nearly complete replacement of jury trials with plea bargains.
“Some scholars peg the number of federal statutory crimes at more than 5,000,” Gorsuch and co-author Janie Nitze note, while “estimates suggest that at least 300,000 federal agency regulations carry criminal sanctions.” The fact that neither number is known with precision, they suggest, speaks volumes about the “unpredictable traps for the unwary” set by the government’s ever-expanding rules.
To illustrate “the human toll” of “too much law,” the book tells the story of Florida fisherman John Yates, whose grueling legal odyssey began with the charge that he had discarded undersized red grouper. That alleged act supposedly violated a law aimed at deterring the destruction of potentially incriminating financial records. Gorsuch also recalls the pretrial suicide of 26-year-old computer programmer Aaron Swartz, whom prosecutors threatened with “decades in prison and millions in fines” for downloading a bunch of articles from an online academic library without permission.
Over Ruled emphasizes how overmatched ordinary people are in disputes with bureaucrats empowered to write the rules under which they operate. Those nemeses include officials charged with dispensing government benefits, deciding whether immigrants can remain in the country, and enforcing the frequently arbitrary and petty restrictions inspired by COVID-19. Gorsuch also decries draconian prison sentences and mass incarceration, again illustrating how his supposedly right-wing instincts frequently overlap with progressive concerns. His compassion for people confronted by bewildering, absurdly punitive legal codes defies ideological stereotypes.”
“there are scenarios in which intentionally lying about a fire in a crowded theater and causing a stampede might lead to a disorderly conduct citation or similar charge.”
…
“Although the Supreme Court has never had the occasion to adjudicate an actual dispute involving a person yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, the Court did at least narrow its “clear and present danger test” in 1969, setting a higher standard for imminent incitement of lawless action.””