SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
us supreme court
'Horrific': Supreme Court OKs Trump’s Border Wall Construction in Big Bend
"The damage done to Big Bend will be felt for future generations of Texans and Americans," one advocate said, "and this administration will bear responsibility for the natural heritage we lose.”
Nov 09, 2026
The US Supreme Court on Monday lifted a court order that had halted construction of a barrier wall and roads across Big Bend National Park and the surrounding region, but advocates warned that the "firestorm of outrage" unleashed by the Trump administration waiving of dozens of environmental laws to build the wall would only intensify.
In an 8-1 vote, with Democratic appointee Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting, the high court lifted an injunction that had been issued October 2 by US District Judge Kathleen Cardone, a Republican appointee in the Western District of Texas.
Cardone handed down the injunction after the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Friends of the Ruidosa Church, and a Big Bend-area river guide and landowner filed a lawsuit challenging the administration's decision to waive laws including the Endangered Species Act, the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and the National Park Service Organic Act, arguing that such waivers violate the major questions doctrine, which requires congressional approval for actions with major economic and political consequences.
The majority ruled that construction can continue as the lower court considers its legality, finding that Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin is permitted by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to waive environmental laws and has “broad authority to construct border barriers and roads."
In August, despite a separate coalition's lawsuit, bulldozers appeared at Big Bend and began leveling part of the national park before the October ruling halted construction.
Laiken Jordahl, national public lands advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity, told The New York Times he was "completely devastated" by the ruling.
Customs and Border Protection has indicated the agency plans to build vehicle barriers and patrol roads across the national park, including in the remote Mariscal Mountain region, which would require "extensive dynamite blasting," according to CBD.
“The Trump administration and its contractors are hell-bent on destroying one of America’s greatest national parks, and the Supreme Court just gave them the green light,” Jordahl said in a statement. “This horrific decision clears the way for contractors to bulldoze pristine desert and dynamite canyon walls before the courts have even decided whether this destruction is legal. They’re signing off on the permanent destruction of the wildest place in Texas, and the theft of a great American river from all of us.”
Sierra Club also expressed outrage, and US Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) said the decision would only "destroy the nature and wildlife that we love at Big Bend."
"The corrupt and far-right Supreme Court just gave [President Donald] Trump the OK to rip up Big Bend with a border wall. No one will be safer or freer," said Casar. "Democrats, Republicans, Texans of all backgrounds all agree: Leave Big Bend alone."
Jordahl emphasized that the court had ruled in favor of the Trump administration less than a week after two Texas Democrats, Sen.-elect James Talarico and Gov.-elect Gina Hinojosa, stunned the Republican Party with their electoral victories in the longtime GOP stronghold.
Texans “roundly rejected the destruction of this national park and border wall destruction at large," Jordahl told the Times, adding that Mullin's agency “would be wise to listen to Texans and pump the brakes on this project.”
In a statement, he warned that "Americans care deeply about this extraordinary national park and they won’t stand by quietly if its irreplaceable landscapes are butchered and paved over."
"The damage done to Big Bend will be felt for future generations of Texans and Americans," he said, "and this administration will bear responsibility for the natural heritage we lose.”
Hillary Pierce, director of communications for the group No Big Bend Wall, which also sued the administration in September, noted that officials haven't "answered why the government is building a wall in one of the least-crossed stretches of the southern border."
“Once the bulldozers cut through a canyon or a family's ranch gets walled off from the Rio Grande, there's no undoing it," said Pierce. "This isn't the end of our fight. The justices didn't decide whether Big Bend actually qualifies as an area of high illegal entry. That matters because the administration used that designation to justify building the wall and bypassing environmental protections. The government's own numbers show Big Bend has the fewest Border Patrol apprehensions along the southern border. That's exactly what we're challenging in our lawsuit in Washington.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Montana Voters Overwhelmingly Pass Ballot Initiative to Ban Corporate Cash From Political Campaigns
"The more states that follow this innovative approach, the more we can make Citizens United irrelevant."
Nov 04, 2026
Voters in Montana on Tuesday delivered a major blow to big moneyed interests by overwhelmingly passing a ballot initiative barring corporate cash from political campaigns in the state.
With 87% of votes counted as of Wednesday morning, Montana Constitutional Initiative 194 has received support from more than 65% of voters, with just 35% registering opposition.
The initiative prohibits what it describes as "artificial persons"—which includes corporations, nonprofits, trusts, partnerships, and trade associations—from giving money to political campaigns.
Supporters of the initiative have billed it as a way to strike a blow against the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which opened the door to unlimited campaign spending in US politics.
“A yes vote on I-194 means that only real people—not corporations, unions, trade associations, nonprofits, or groups with anonymous donors—are allowed to spend money in Montana elections,” the Yes on Initiative 194 campaign explained on its website. "It’s time to kick the oligarchs out of Big Sky country."
The initiative's overwhelming victory drew praise from Tom Moore, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, who congratulated the people of Montana for taking "a historic step toward ending the scourge of corporate and dark money in politics."
Moore noted that the initiative passed by Montana is similar to a law passed in Hawaii earlier this year that classified corporations as "artificial persons" who do not have a constitutional right to make political donations.
Both states, Moore said, are "setting a bold example for other states to follow suit, sending a powerful message that we don’t have to give corporations unlimited power."
"The more states that follow this innovative approach," he added, "the more we can make Citizens United irrelevant."
Stacy Mitchell, co-executive director at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, hailed the initiative's passage as a win for democratic governance.
"We've largely forgotten that states define what corporations can do," Mitchell wrote in a social media post. "Yesterday, Montana voters overwhelmingly stripped corporations of the power to spend money influencing elections. Hawaii did the same in May. Both face court fights. Our nascent citizen muscle is coming to life."
Adam Bojak, a Democrat who on Tuesday won an election in New York State Assembly District 149, said he'd like to see the Empire State follow the trail blazed by Montana and Hawaii.
"Congratulations to the people of Montana!" Bojak wrote. "I can't wait to bring this legislation to New York in next year's session."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'How Do You Get Money Out of Politics Without Overturning Citizens United?' Montana Could Have the Answer
Initiative 194 "is not going to stop Elon Musk from writing a big fat check," explained one backer, but it would prevent "laundering the money through a dark money group."
Nov 03, 2026
Montanans are voting Tuesday on a potentially groundbreaking ballot initiative that could become a model for how to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission—the 2010 US Supreme Court decision that ushered in the era of unlimited money in politics—without the near-impossible necessity of a constitutional amendment.
Citizens United established that the government cannot restrict independent political expenditures by corporations, labor unions, and other outside groups on the basis of their corporate or union identity. Simply put, the decision affirmed corporate personhood and, essentially, that money is speech that cannot be restricted.
Since then, super political action committees have proliferated, and corporate spending has exploded from just $12.8 million during the 2010 election cycle to $737 million during the current one.
Initiative 194, also known as the Montana Plan, would prohibit corporations, nonprofits, trade associations, and other artificial entities from spending money to influence elections and ballot measures in the state. Rather than attempting to restrict corporations' constitutional rights as affirmed by Citizens United, states could simply not give corporations the legal power to spend on politics.
"A yes vote on I-194 means that only real people—not corporations, unions, trade associations, nonprofits, or groups with anonymous donors—are allowed to spend money in Montana elections," the Yes on Initiative 194 campaign said on its website.
"It's time to kick the oligarchs out of Big Sky country," the campaign added.
The proposal's backers argue that legal entities should not have the same rights as natural persons.
"Each state creates and defines its corporations. It need not permit its creations to consume it," Tom Moore, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress (CAP), explained in September, arguing that corporations are legal creations, not natural persons, and that states retain broad authority to determine what powers they exercise.
"When the state creates a corporation, it is starting from nothing and deciding what to give the corporation, and no case has ever held that they have to give local spending power to a corporation," Moore told Fortune on Tuesday. "It's not regulation; it's redefinition."
Moore stressed that Initiative 194 "is not going to stop Elon Musk from writing a big fat check to some election in Montana."
"What it will stop them from doing is laundering the money through a dark money group," he added.
Montana's former commissioner of Political Practices, Jeff Mangan—who spearheaded Initiative 194—was equally blunt.
"The Montana Plan simply removes the ability for corporations to spend in our politics," he told Montana PBS. "By removing the corporation's ability to spend in our politics, we end dark money. Simple as that."
Initiative 194 has attracted support from Montanans concerned about the growing influence of wealthy donors and anonymous political spending.
"Most people I talk to when they hear about the prospect of getting dark money out of elections are in favor of it," state resident Nathan Kommers told Montana PBS. "I think that it makes sense to almost everybody."
Shannon Stober, who lives in the Bozeman area, said: "I think what I've observed over the past 15 years is the ways in which money and politics has completely created a decline in civic engagement and participation. A lot of people have just decided that their participation doesn't matter and they don't feel like there's a way out."
Opponents, including the Montana Chamber of Commerce, argue that Initiative 194 violates the First Amendment by restricting organizations' political speech. If passed, the measure will surely face legal challenges.
However, former Republican Montana Gov. Marc Racicot, who supports Initiative 194, said the effort is worthwhile regardless of the ultimate outcome.
"You can't just sit back and curse the darkness," he told Montana PBS. "You have to try and do something about it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A Complete DEFEAT for Trump DOJ': Supreme Court Rejects Push to Set Aside 20K California Ballots
The high court "declines to let Trump interfere in the election in California," one law professor said.
Nov 02, 2026
Although the US Supreme Court has a right-wing supermajority with multiple appointees of President Donald Trump, the nation's top tribunal rejected his administration's effort to set aside thousands of California ballots on the eve of the midterm elections.
The one-sentence order simply says that the application for an injunction pending appeal, presented to Justice Elena Kagan—one of the three liberals—and referred by her to the full court, is denied, with no noted dissents.
Trump has long claimed that voter fraud by immigrants is a rampant issue in the United States—despite evidence to the contrary—and his Department of Justice sued California last week after the state refused to set aside ballots from a list of voters the DOJ claimed could be noncitizens and thus ineligible to vote, based on databases known to be full of errors.
Democratic election attorney Marc Elias was among those celebrating the justices' denial of an emergency stay. He noted that "the court did not even ask for opposition briefs!"
The lawyer called it "a complete DEFEAT for Trump DOJ," and "another victory for Elias Law Group and our clients."
Joyce White Vance, a University of Alabama law professor and legal commentator on networks including MS NOW, similarly declared that "the Supreme Court declines to let Trump interfere in the election in California."
US House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY)—who could lead the chamber if Democrats win a majority on Tuesday—also applauded that "the Supreme Court just denied the Trump Justice Department's corrupt request for an injunction in the California vote count," calling it "another complete and total defeat for the extremists."
As The Associated Press reported Monday:
A district court judge previously denied the Justice Department’s request and warned that the demand could disenfranchise citizens in Tuesday’s midterm elections to determine control of Congress.
Also on Monday in Washington, another federal judge ruled against the administration's efforts to make last-minute demands of California election officials, finding they violated the US Constitution.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta on Monday also pointed to recent rulings against the administration in a social media exchange with Bill Essayli, first assistant US attorney for the Central District of California.
While the Supreme Court has sometimes sided with Trump's agenda during his second term, it has rejected some of his recent attacks on democracy, including a September decision against his US Postal Service rules for mail-in ballots.
Despite the win at the high court on Monday, the president's efforts to interfere with the midterms are expected to continue. Given that, the Advancement Project, Legal Defense Fund, and NAACP are seeking an order to block federal law enforcement agents from serving as "election monitors."
The midterms come as Trump's public approval is at an all-time low, and Democrats highlight his illegal war on Iran and the related cost-of-living crisis in their efforts to secure majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives for the rest of his second term.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Vote to Check Trump's Power—Then Demand Victorious Dems Follow Through
Of all the accountability tools that will be available should the Democrats prevail on November 3, impeachment and court reform stand out as the most powerful.
Nov 01, 2026
It’s not enough for the Democrats to win the midterms. Whether they take back one or both chambers of Congress, their overriding objective must be to cripple the remainder of Donald Trump’s presidency and dismantle the MAGA movement he leads. Holding Trump and his key enablers to account for their lawlessness and corruption will be the standard for success. Without accountability, there will be no justice and no end to the growing threat of fascism in America.
Of all the accountability tools that will be available should the Democrats prevail on November 3, impeachment and court reform stand out as the most powerful. Both are implicitly on the midterm ballot, and while neither is a magic bullet for checking Trumpism, they can and must be deployed far more aggressively and urgently than in the past.
The road ahead won’t be easy, but the party may never get another opportunity.
Impeachment
The Supreme Court’s 2024 decision on presidential immunity (Trump v. United States), penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, has made it all but impossible to hold Trump accountable through ordinary criminal prosecutions. As legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin has noted, Roberts’ opinion contains language that “suggests the president cannot even be investigated for his official actions,” much less indicted.
But the immunity ruling in no way undermines Congress’ impeachment powers. Even Trump’s lead lawyer in the case—D. John Sauer, now the administration’s solicitor general—acknowledged the broad scope of the impeachment power, contending that the Constitution’s Impeachment Judgment Clause (Article I, Section 3, Clause 7) requires that a president be impeached by the House and convicted in the Senate before being prosecuted criminally. Although the court rejected Sauer’s prerequisite argument, it recognized, consistent with the views of the Founders, that impeachment is a political process separate and apart from criminal prosecutions.
As Trump’s lawlessness and corruption have become more brazen and unrestrained, appeals for a third impeachment are mounting. In early October, the Philadelphia Inquirer published a series of editorials and op-eds calling on Congress to act in response to the president’s unconstitutional military operations in Iran and elsewhere; his attacks on judges, journalists, law firms, and political opponents; his threats to execute members of Congress; his reckless deployment of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents; his inhumane mass deportations and detentions; his assault on birthright citizenship; and his use of the presidency for base self-enrichment, among myriad other “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
As Ralph Nader and Bruce Fein put it in their contribution to the Inquirer series, “Trump has turned the Constitution into a museum piece and claimed the infinite unchecked power of a dictator.” In their view, the “doubting Thomases who dismiss” a third impeachment are turning a blind eye to Trump’s “litany” of derelictions.
Even if conviction in the Senate is unlikely, the process itself has enormous value. Writing for LawFare in 2021 at the outset of Trump’s second impeachment trial, Princeton University political science professor Keith Whittington explained:
[R]emoval and disqualification are not the sole purposes of the impeachment clause. The impeachment process is a “grand inquest” in the sense that it is congressional oversight on steroids. The impeachment power gives the first, most democratic branch of the government the ability to scrutinize the actions of individuals in the other branches of government and call them to account for their actions… What’s more, the impeachment process serves as a warning to future officeholders.
There is also no reason for the Democrats to limit impeachment proceedings to the president. The vice president and all civil officers of the United States, including the justices of the Supreme Court, will all be fair game. Aware of his exposure, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is reportedly eyeing a Senate seat in Tennessee, hoping that if Marsha Blackburn becomes the state’s next governor, she will appoint him to fill her vacant seat, as senators are not considered civil officers of the US.
Many Trump aides are also reportedly seeking pardons to protect themselves from future federal criminal charges. Trump has expressed a willingness to comply, but the Constitution is very clear that the pardon power does not extend to cases of impeachment.
With the midterm elections behind them and an electoral base demanding action, we could see not one but multiple impeachment inquiries in the House—and, later, trials in the Senate—aimed at airing the facts of the Trump administration’s malfeasance for all the world to see, and serving as a catalyst for legislation to prevent another Trump-like tyrant from rising in the future.
Court Reform
John Roberts and his Republican confederates have issued a blistering succession of reactionary majority opinions, not only on presidential immunity, but also on voting rights, gerrymandering, union organizing, the death penalty, environmental protection, gun control, abortion, affirmative action, campaign finance, the use of dark money in politics, and equality for LGBTQ+ people, to cite just a few of the worst.
Reversing the tide and restoring our rights will require court reform. And while the most far-reaching reforms—such as more justices and term limits—will have to wait until the election of a Democratic president, a new Democratic Senate majority will be able to immediately block the confirmation of any pending or future Trump judicial nominees.
Clarence Thomas, 78, and Samuel Alito, 76, are the Supreme Court’s oldest members. Both are far beyond their salad days, and Alito has said that he is considering retirement before Trump leaves office. If either or both step aside while the Republicans hold the Senate, Trump will undoubtedly replace them with younger and possibly even more extreme jurists, such as James Ho of the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals, or the obsequious Florida US District Court Judge Aileen Cannon, who killed the Mar-a-Lago documents case. If the Democrats retake the upper chamber, the two senior justices will likely hang on as long as they can, but neither will outlast the term of the next Democratic president, who can replace them with liberals.
The outlook for the lower federal courts, where the vast majority of cases are decided, is even more favorable. A Democratic Senate majority should mean the end to new Trump judges anywhere in the country.
Where We Come In
Nothing is certain in politics, and it is entirely possible that the Democrats, once back in the majority, will try to mend fences with their MAGA adversaries in a futile attempt to restore the status quo ante Trump.
This is where we come in.
Voting is essential, but it cannot be the end of our political engagement. After the midterms, and throughout the run-up to 2028, we will need to keep the pressure on. We cannot allow the Democrats to chicken out, as they have so often in the past. There can be no more Biden nice guys, and no more Merrick Garlands. We have seen that movie before, and it isn’t worth a sequel.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Days Before Midterms, US Supreme Court Lets New Hampshire Bar Student IDs for Voting
"The Supreme Court thinks corporations can buy our elections but a college kid can’t use a student ID to vote."
Oct 23, 2026
The US Supreme Court ruled Thursday, less than two weeks before the midterm elections, that New Hampshire officials can bar students from using their school ID cards as a form of identification when voting.
Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the lone dissenter, expressing support for a lower-court decision ordering New Hampshire election officials to consider student IDs as evidence of a prospective voter's identity. Jackson wrote that "when an election is looming," she "would not disturb a clearly justifiable federal-court order issued to ensure that the public receives accurate information about a state’s electoral processes."
Josh Orton, president of the advocacy group Demand Justice, condemned the high court's decision as "absurd," saying that "the Supreme Court thinks corporations can buy our elections but a college kid can’t use a student ID to vote."
“This November we vote in numbers they can’t ignore," said Orton. "Long term, we must expand the Court and end this corrupt majority for good.”
The Supreme Court's brief decision came after New Hampshire officials, with the support of national Republicans, filed an emergency request urging the justices to block the lower-court order allowing election officials to take student IDs into consideration when a voter is trying to prove their identity. The lower-court order limited an April directive from New Hampshire's Republican secretary of state, David Scanlon, who said that "student IDs cannot be used as proof" under a recently enacted state voter ID law.
Retiring Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), whose seat is up for grabs in a competitive race on November 3, wrote in a social media post that she "strongly" disagrees with the Supreme Court's decision and is "troubled by any efforts to limit access at the ballot box."
"With midterm elections days away," Shaheen added, "the Supreme Court just made it harder for our Granite State students to vote."
The counsel for the Coalition for Open Democracy, which sued over the New Hampshire voter ID law, said in a statement that the Supreme Court's decision was "wrong," arguing it injects "confusion into the election" and authorizes "an unconstitutional policy that will deprive young voters of their right to vote."
"We applaud Justice Jackson for her dissent," the statement continued. "We will continue to vigorously litigate this case in the defense of the fundamental right to vote of young voters across New Hampshire."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Just a Flat-Out Lie': Collins Says She Couldn't Have Known Kavanaugh Would Vote to Overturn Roe v. Wade
"This is just another flimsy attempt to avoid responsibility for her actions," said a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood Votes Maine.
Oct 20, 2026
As she faces a tough reelection fight in Maine, Republican Sen. Susan Collins is twisting the facts about her role in laying the groundwork for the US Supreme Court's overturning of abortion rights.
Throughout the campaign, Collins has been dogged by questions about her fateful decision in 2018 to cast a key vote to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the court. In 2022, he joined the court's conservative majority to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade precedent, allowing states to impose severe new bans and restrictions on abortion.
In June, Collins—who has described herself as pro-choice—said she did "not regret" her vote to confirm Kavanaugh, falsely claiming that Roe was overturned by a 6-3 margin and was therefore doomed regardless of her vote. In fact, the precedent was overturned by a 5-4 margin, meaning Kavanaugh's vote proved decisive.
Now in a dead heat race with Democratic nominee Troy Jackson, who has repeatedly hammered her on abortion rights, Collins has continued to defend her confirmation vote. She's also kept fudging the truth.
“I’m very disappointed in his vote to overturn Roe v. Wade,” Collins said of Kavanaugh during an interview published Monday by Maine ABC affiliate WMTW. “There was no way for me to anticipate that.”
Collins had, in fact, been warned that Kavanaugh might overturn Roe v. Wade. In her October 5, 2018, speech supporting his confirmation, she explicitly acknowledged “the concern that Judge Kavanaugh would seek to overturn Roe v. Wade” and noted that President Donald Trump had pledged to nominate judges who would do so.
Reproductive freedom advocates cautioned her that Kavanaugh was not being truthful when he said he considered Roe to be settled precedent, citing his history of ruling against abortion access and praising former Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s dissent in Roe.
But Collins dismissed these advocates' warnings, arguing that Republican-appointed Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, David Souter, and Anthony Kennedy had voted to reaffirm Roe despite opposition to some of their nominations from abortion rights groups. “Suffice it to say, prominent advocacy organizations have been wrong,” Collins said.
In this case, they were not. Lisa Margulies, spokesperson for Planned Parenthood Votes in Maine, said it was dishonest of Collins to plead innocence.
"It’s just a flat-out lie that Susan Collins had ‘no way’ of knowing Brett Kavanaugh would overturn our federal right to abortion," she said. "Mainers drove down to DC and begged her not to confirm him. They knew he was a direct threat to abortion, and so did Susan Collins."
"This is just another flimsy attempt to avoid responsibility for her actions," Margulies said. "Enough is enough. Mainers deserve better than a senator who will throw their rights under the bus and then refuse to acknowledge the harm done."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Mahmoud Khalil Asks Supreme Court to Weigh In On Fights Against 'Unlawful Attempts to Detain and Deport People'
"The Supreme Court must uphold the power of habeas courts to free people from retaliatory detention and prevent the weaponization of the immigration system to punish dissent."
Oct 19, 2026
Attorneys representing former Columbia University student organizer Mahmoud Khalil on Monday asked the US Supreme Court to hear a challenge to an appellate ruling that overturned a judge's determination that his 2025 detention by federal immigration officials was unconstitutional.
Khalil, a legal US permanent resident who was born in a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria, was arrested by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in March 2025 and detained on claims that his activism was "adverse to the foreign policy interests of the United States."
US District Judge Michael Farbiarz, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, freed Khalil from ICE custody, arguing that his detention was unwarranted since he was neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community.
However, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals overruled Farbiarz's decision on the grounds that federal courts did not have jurisdiction to rule on immigration cases.
In making his appeal to the Supreme Court to hear his case, Khalil said the outcome would determine "whether I, and all immigrants in this country, can actually challenge this administration’s unlawful attempts to detain and deport people solely in retaliation for their First Amendment protected speech."
Baher Azmy, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents Khalil, argued that the appeals court's decision was in error because federal courts should always have jurisdiction over cases involving core rights such as habeas corpus petitions.
"Our most fundamental constitutional principles have always prevented the president from sending people into detention on a whim or out of spite," said Azmy. "Access to the critical protections of habeas corpus is an essential check on the kind of arbitrary detention here, which the administration wants free rein to accomplish, by punishing Mr. Khalil for nothing other than constitutionally protected speech."
Alina Das, director of the New York University Immigrant Rights Clinic, which is also representing the former student, said the Trump administration's detention of Khalil violated his core constitutional rights, while also chilling the speech of both US citizens and noncitizens who "fear retaliation against themselves or their loved one."
"The Supreme Court must uphold the power of habeas courts to free people from retaliatory detention," said Das, "and prevent the weaponization of the immigration system to punish dissent."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Roberts' Supreme Court Has Made Prosecuting Corrupt Politicians Nearly Impossible: Veteran Prosecutor
"This behavior should be illegal because corruption is poison to democracy."
Oct 19, 2026
Corruption has become a leading issue for US voters heading into the 2026 midterm elections, driven in no small part by concerns about President Donald Trump's unprecedented self-enrichment while in office.
But even as Americans express greater worry about corruption in government, actually prosecuting corrupt politicians has grown significantly more difficult over the last 40 years—and one legal expert places blame for this directly on the US Supreme Court.
In an essay published by The Atlantic on Monday, former federal prosecutor Leo Wise argued that the Supreme Court since the 1980s has "interpreted anti-corruption laws in ways so narrow as to effectively legalize flat-out corruption," thus putting "whole categories of politicians' conduct beyond a prosecutor’s reach."
The trend began in 1987, Wise explained, when the court overturned a mail fraud conviction of a member of the Kentucky governor’s Cabinet, which relied upon proving that the official had violated the public's right to "honest services" from its government.
In its ruling, the court declared that federal mail and wire fraud statutes only protected money and property, and did not apply to abstract principles like the right to an honest government.
Wise noted that Congress would subsequently step in and pass bipartisan legislation that effectively overturned the court's ruling, although this kind of congressional action would grow increasingly rare in the coming years.
Far greater damage would come after John Roberts took over as chief justice of the court in 2005, Wise continued, starting with a 2010 case that overturned former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling's conviction of conspiring to commit honest-services fraud.
The majority opinion, written by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, claimed that "because bribery and kickbacks were the 'basis of most honest-services prosecutions,' that’s what the statute’s application would be limited to," Wise explained.
The impact of this decision, Wise added, was to further restrict prosecutors' ability to bring corruption charges.
Wise then singled out the 2016 decision that overturned the bribery conviction of former Republican Virginia Gov. Robert McDonnell, which he described as the court's "grossest" intervention.
"A jury had convicted the former governor on bribery charges for accepting $175,000 in loans and gifts from the CEO of a nutritional-supplement company that wanted Virginia’s public universities to run clinical trials on his product," Wise wrote. "The court held that what McDonnell did for the CEO—setting up meetings, hosting events, talking to other elected officials, all to benefit his company—did not qualify as 'official acts,' for which McDonnell could be bribed."
In 2024, the court took another major step forward in legalizing corruption with its ruling granting US presidents absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for carrying out official acts.
This decision was particularly egregious, Wise contended, because "unlike the earlier decisions that interpreted statutes and that therefore Congress can reverse by passing new legislation, the Court claimed that presidential immunity was required by the Constitution itself," thus making it vastly more difficult to overturn.
Nonetheless, Wise said that Congress could chip away at presidents' ability to act corruptly by "prohibiting the US government from accepting gifts such as the Qatari plane" that Trump accepted last year, as well as "disqualifying companies that invest in a president’s businesses or donate to his library from bidding on government contracts."
"This behavior should be illegal," Wise emphasized, "because corruption is poison to democracy."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Beware Republicans Purging Their Way to Midterm Victory
Republican secretaries of state are bragging about the millions of Americans whose right to vote they’re “purging” from the voting rolls this year. How are they getting away with it?
Oct 15, 2026
With virtually no mention or reporting in the corporate press, Republican-run states are again running the voter purge of millions that gave Donald Trump the White House in 2024.
On Wednesday morning, Reuters published a special report on the ways the Trump administration could “interfere” with the midterms, noting that a lawyer in Idaho’s Republican attorney general’s office bragged that his state had “taken a leading role in ensuring its voter registration list is purged….”
Yep, they used the word “purged.” They’re not even bothering with the polite terms anymore.
Your “right to a gun” is real but your “right to vote” is not, at least as long as corrupt Republicans control the Supreme Court and Congress.
And it’s not like the Republicans really believe the mythology they’re trying to sell the rest of us. The GOP-aligned, billionaire-funded Heritage Foundation spent over a decade doing a deep dive into every state looking for voter fraud and noncitizen voters, examining every American vote since 2000—more than a billion ballots cast nationwide—and found just 89 cases of noncitizen voters. In more than 20 years!
The libertarian Cato Institute did a similar analysis specifically on the 2020 election looking for any evidence that Trump’s claims were right that the election was “stolen” from him by “Mexicans” voting in the US election. They concluded the same thing:
There are likely many problems with America’s voting system and there is no doubt that a non-zero number of noncitizens illegally voted, but there is no good evidence that noncitizens voted illegally in large enough numbers to actually shift the outcome of elections or even change the number of electoral votes.
Nonetheless, Republicans keep promoting their lie that “illegals are voting” to justify massive purges of legal voters whose only crime is being Black, Hispanic, living in a college town, or being a big city dweller in a red state. A likely Democratic voter, in other words.
And let’s not forget that hypocrite Trump himself is all in on encouraging voter fraud; at his “midterm convention” in Dallas a few weeks ago he had thousands of people raise their hands and repeat an oath after him:
I don’t care if I’m registered or not, I’m going to try and cheat like hell...
And the Reuters story comes three weeks after six corrupt Republicans on the Supreme Court let Trump’s Department of Homeland Security, run by former plumber Markwayne Mullin, turn an Immigration and Customs Enforcement immigration database called SAVE into a bulk voter-purging machine right in the middle of an election.
When Texas ran its registered voters through SAVE they purged thousands of people wrongly flagged as noncitizens; League of United Latin American Citizens is suing to try to get these actual citizens voting rights restored.
Which all raises a question that I’ve been asking on the air (and in my book The Hidden History of the War on Voting) for years:
Why is it that if a Republican governor wants to take away your gun he has to go to court, but if he wants to take away your vote he doesn’t even have to notify you?
You’ll recall that back in 2008 five corrupt Republicans on the Supreme Court declared that we all have an absolute constitutional “right” to own a gun, and if any state or city wants to violate that right they have to go before a judge and present evidence that you can contest and even appeal all the way to the Supreme Court itself.
When we have a “right” in America and our government wants to take it away, they have to provide notice, irrefutable evidence, a courtroom and neutral judge, a finding, and a right to appeal. It’s called “due process” and is established by the Fifth and 14th Amendments.
And in 1993, Congress passed and Bill Clinton signed a law establishing—without any ambiguity—that your vote is also a “right.” The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) lays it out clearly:
“[T]he right of citizens of the United States to vote is a fundamental right,” and that “it is the duty of the Federal, State, and local governments to promote the exercise of that right.”
And the phrase “right to vote” also appears five times in the Constitution itself, more than any other right that document names (guns get a single mention).
So, why is it that Republican secretaries of state are bragging about the millions of Americans whose right to vote they’re “purging” from the voting rolls this year? And how are they getting away with using junk-mail-appearing postcards to justify those purges?
In 1981, the Republican National Committee sent letters to Black and Hispanic voters in New Jersey to “verify” their voting status; they built a challenge list of 45,000 people and posted off-duty cops at polling places in predominantly Black and Democratic Newark and Trenton to check names to challenge those voters.
The Democratic Party sued against this practice, called “caging” in the direct mail industry, and won a court order blocking the Republicans from doing it. That consent decree expired in 2018, though, the same year that five corrupt Republicans on the Supreme Court told Ohio Secretary of State John Husted that he could resume the practice, but this time instead of the GOP paying for it the cost of mailing the postcards could be covered by Ohio taxpayers.
Justice Stephen Breyer’s dissent pointed out the obvious fraud of it, noting that on average around 4% of Americans move their residence every year but:
The record shows that in 2012 Ohio identified about 1.5 million registered voters—nearly 20% of its 8 million registered voters—as likely ineligible to remain on the federal voter roll because they [allegedly] changed their residences.
Now the practice has spread to virtually every Republican-controlled state. They send out millions of postcards that look like junk mail, and if you don’t return one and skip an election, you’re officially purged. They don’t even have to notify you; you find out when you show up on election day and they either turn you away or give you a “provisional” ballot.
During and after the 2024 election, my radio and TV show’s phone lines were jammed with people—many from big cities in Ohio and Georgia—complaining that this had happened to them and they’d just discovered it when they tried to vote. None had been notified.
And, sure enough, the provisional ballots were the tell that exposes this GOP scam. The Election Assistance Commission’s (EAC) own survey of the 2024 election found that 1,736,209 Americans were shunted onto provisional ballots that year, and that the single most common reason was that the voter “did not appear on the list of eligible voters.”
Provisional ballots are often not counted at all, unless the voter shows up at the Secretary of State’s office before the final count to certify that they are, in fact, a legal citizen and voter.
Since the Husted decision by the Supreme Court allowing this bizarre practice, Republicans have put their corrupt system into hyperdrive. That same EAC federal survey found that GOP-controlled states sent out nearly 40 million “confirmation postcards” in just the two years between the 2022 and 2024 elections.
As a result, more than 21 million registered voters were stripped from the voting rolls in the months leading up to the 2024 election, and the most common justification was that they failed to return that junk-mail postcard.
Reporter and former statistics professor Greg Palast testified about this in federal court for the NAACP and, here on Hartmann Report, detailed how his team went through Georgia’s purge list person-by-person.
They found 198,351 Georgians who’d been cancelled even though they hadn’t moved and were still (mostly Black) citizens. In Wisconsin, where former Vice President Kamala Harris lost by 29,397 votes, Republicans had purged 166,433 voters from the lists. Pennsylvania had purged 360,132 people, about three times Trump’s margin of victory in that state.
His conclusion was straightforward:
Trump lost. That is, if all legal voters were allowed to vote, if all legal ballots were counted, Trump would have lost the states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia. Vice-President Kamala Harris would have won the Presidency with 286 electoral votes.
And, if not for the mass purge of voters of color, if not for the mass disqualification of provisional and mail-in ballots, if not for the new mass “vigilante” challenges in swing states, Harris would have gained at least another 3,565,000 votes, topping Trump’s official popular vote tally by 1.2 million.
In other words, your “right to a gun” is real but your “right to vote” is not, at least as long as corrupt Republicans control the Supreme Court and Congress.
Imagine, for example, what would happen if your county sheriff started confiscating guns from people who failed to mail back a postcard. The right-wing press would be hysterical, and the court would strike it down in a New York minute.
So here’s where we are today. Georgia’s Brad Raffensperger (pronounced “Raff - ens - purger”) cancelled nearly 471,000 registrations last August, 6% of the entire state, the majority Democrats according to a Fair Fight analysis.
When Black Voters Matter asked for the records behind the purge, Raffensperger’s office handed over a stripped-down spreadsheet, and they had to sue him to try to get the names. Ohio’s Frank LaRose published a list of 352,389 names for cancellation just this past year, following a 2024 purge in which Ohio Democrats documented more than a thousand wrongly removed voters in Cuyahoga County alone.
Meanwhile Trump’s Justice Department has filed 31 lawsuits against states and the District of Columbia to seize their full voter files, including driver’s license and partial Social Security numbers, so the whole country can be run through his flawed SAVE purging database.
Republicans can’t win elections on their track record of taking away healthcare, gutting the Social Security Administration, and handing massive tax cuts to billionaires, so they send postcards into Black and Hispanic neighborhoods and college towns. The only thing that’s changed since Jim Crow, in other words, is the technology.
Democrats in Congress tried to fix this situation in 2022 with the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act. It passed the House and had a majority in the Senate, but every Republican in the Senate joined in a filibuster. If Sens. Kyrsen Sinema (I-Ariz.) and Joe Manchin (D- W. Va.) hadn’t stabbed us all in the back by voting with Republicans to sustain the filibuster, these crimes against our democracy would be explicitly illegal, as they already are in every other advanced nation in the world.
Fixing this—codifying our “right to vote” per the NVRA from 1993 and with new legislation—has to be right up there with overturning the other most-corrupt action to come from Republicans on the court, aka Citizens United.
But none of that will ever happen if Republicans continue to control the House and the Senate so Trump can further disintegrate our republic and turn us into his beloved Russia before the 2028 election.
So, vote!
And please share this article with your friends in red states, support independent journalism by subscribing to The Hartmann Report, and pass it on. They can’t purge all of us if we’re all watching.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy