‘REBELLION’?: Courts Weigh Oregon, Illinois Arguments Against Trump’s National Guard Deployments

Two federal courts heard arguments Thursday about President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to quell unrest near U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities in Portland, Oregon, and Chicago. “The district court found that the Portland ICE facility protests were small—less than 30 people—largely sedate and generally peaceful,” Oregon Assistant Attorney General Stacy Chaffin told the three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The hearing was held remotely by video.  Two of the judges, Ryan Nelson and Bridget Bade, are Trump appointees. Another judge, Susan Graber,…

Read More...

Lawmaker calls for an independent review of cybersecurity in the U.S. courts system

After a high-profile hack, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) is calling for an independent review of cybersecurity in the U.S. courts system. In a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts, Wyden said the federal Judiciary has fallen short in protecting its sensitive IT systems. He pointed to a recent intrusion of the courts’ case management system. Hackers reportedly took advantage of vulnerabilities that were brought to light five years ago, after a separate hack of the case management system. Wyden says Roberts should commission a National Academy of Sciences review of…

Read More...

How to keep the courts out of administrative decisions

Attorney Domenic Powell worked for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau until today, when the Trump administration sort of canceled it. Ironically, this CFPB attorney wrote about how to court-proof administrative branch decisions. That was in December, before the onslaught of Trump-DOGE activities that have mostly ended up in court. Powell joined the Federal Drive with Tom Temin to discuss. Interview transcript: Tom Temin: And we should also point out that you are a fellow of the American Bar Association, specializing in regulatory affairs and administrative procedures. First of all, tell us…

Read More...

Supreme Court’s Affirmative Action Ruling May Be Bigger Than You Think

One of the more interesting, but less reported, aspects of the Supreme Court’s decision in the landmark affirmative action case Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard was its criticism of universities’ racial categories in admissions policies. That critique opens a new way to challenge racial discrimination in court. Lawyers and litigants who care about racial equality should take full advantage of it. The high court’s perspective on racial categories arose out of what is known among lawyers as “the diversity rationale,” which comes from a 1978 opinion by Justice Lewis…

Read More...

5 Monumental Cases That Highlighted the Supreme Court’s 2021-2022 Term

The Supreme Court has just finished what will likely go down as one of the most momentous and memorable terms in history. In addition to the court deciding many blockbuster cases from abortion to the limits of the power of the federal bureaucracy, Justice Stephen Breyer retired, now-Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was sworn in to replace him, there was an unprecedented leak of a draft opinion, protesters showed up at justices’ homes in several attempts to intimidate them, and an armed man made a serious threat to one of the…

Read More...

The Supreme Court’s ‘Dead Hand’

The Supreme Court has set itself on a collision course with the forces of change in an inexorably diversifying America. The six Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices have been nominated and confirmed by GOP presidents and senators representing the voters least exposed, and often most hostile, to the demographic and cultural changes remaking 21st-century American life. Now the GOP Court majority is moving at an accelerating pace to impose that coalition’s preferences on issues such as abortion, voting rights, and affirmative action. On all of these fronts, and others, the Republican…

Read More...