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
demand justice
Watchdog Warns of Trump Plot to Push Alito, Thomas Off Supreme Court While GOP Still Controls Senate
"NPR’s reporting that Justice Alito is retiring was early. But it wasn’t wrong."
Jul 01, 2026
Following a series of major US Supreme Court decisions, NPR retracted an erroneous report on Tuesday that conservative Justice Samuel Alito was planning to retire.
But while that report turned out to be false, a progressive legal action group is warning that it pointed to something potentially very real: That President Donald Trump could try to push aging right-wing justices like 76-year-old Alito, as well as 78-year-old Justice Clarence Thomas, to retire early so he can replace them with young judges who can cement a right-wing majority for decades.
"NPR’s reporting that Justice Alito is retiring was early. But it wasn’t wrong," said Josh Orton, the president of Demand Justice, and Ezra Levin, the co-executive director of Indivisible, in a statement on Wednesday. "We know that Donald Trump will do whatever he can to hold onto power, and we are prepared for him trying to force Alito, Thomas, or both off the bench this year, while Republicans still control the Senate and can ram through a replacement."
It's not an unfounded fear. It's something Trump has discussed openly.
In April, the president told Fox Business interviewer Maria Bartiromo that he was "prepared" to appoint as many as three justices before his term is up—perhaps alluding to the possibility that the liberal 72-year-old Justice Sonia Sotomayor could die before the next president is inaugurated or that the 71-year-old conservative Chief Justice John Roberts could retire.
"In theory, it's two—you just read the statistics—it could be two, could be three, could be one," Trump said. "I don't know. I'm prepared to do it."
He called Alito—who authored major decisions to gut abortion rights, allow religious businesses to deny contraceptive coverage to employees, and kneecap public sector unions—"one of the great justices of all time," but added, "It’d be nice to say, now I have somebody for 40 years.”
He also invoked the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whom he said “really hurt herself within the Democrat Party" by refusing to retire when Barack Obama was president. After Ginsburg's death in 2020, Trump replaced her with Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who expanded the court's conservative majority to 6-3.
Trump was asked about possible Supreme Court vacancies again in an interview with Breitbart News on Wednesday after NPR jumped the gun on Alito's retirement. The president suggested he was torn.
“Well I think you know, if you listen to people, there are three potential vacancies for various reasons, so I’m certainly prepared,” he said. “There are a lot of great people out there who would like to have that position.”
While he praised Alito, describing himself as the justice's "single biggest fan," he reiterated that putting “a young conservative judge on the bench for 40 years” is a “very important thing." He said that the idea of replacing either Alito or Thomas was a "mixed blessing."
Rumblings of a concerted push for both Alito and Thomas to pack up can be traced back to 2024, when The Washington Post reported that Trump adviser Mike Davis was championing the idea in conservative legal circles.
But neither man has indicated plans to retire at this moment. And if Thomas, who has sat on the bench since 1991, were to retire before the next Congress is sworn in, he'd be stopping less than two years shy of eclipsing William O. Douglas to become the longest-serving Supreme Court justice.
Demand Justice, however, is betting on long-term political power winning the day. The group said it has invested $3 million "to prepare for a 2026 Supreme Court fight."
This will include pressuring Republican senators to reject Trump's pick—particularly those like Sens. Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and Thom Tillis (NC) who are retiring at the end of this term, Sens. John Cornyn (Texas) and Bill Cassidy (La.) who lost their primaries, and Sens. Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), who have (at least rhetorically) broken with Trump more frequently than their GOP colleagues.
Orton and Levin said that "Trump will choose his nominee for one reason: loyalty." They said he'd likely pick somebody who'd validate even his most lawless actions even more than the current justices do—including supporting his efforts to overturn an election result, which the court rejected in 2020.
"We’ll be ready to expose them," Orton and Levin said. "And we’ll be ready to fight."
Keep ReadingShow Less
John Fetterman Under Fire for Letting Nomination of ‘Crony Trump Judge’ Advance
"At a time when Trump is corrupting the courts with crony judges who will rig our economy and attack our rights and freedoms for decades, Democrats cannot afford to treat these nominations like business as usual."
Jun 05, 2026
Democratic Sen. John Fetterman is coming under fire from progressives for allowing one of President Donald Trump’s judicial nominees from his home state of Pennsylvania to advance to a confirmation hearing.
As reported by Punchbowl News, Fetterman (D-Pa.) this week waived his right to block the nomination of former federal prosecutor Antonio Pozos for a lifetime appointment in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In doing this, Fetterman became the first Democratic senator to waive this right during Trump's second term.
Under the Senate's "blue slip courtesy" tradition, senators can opt not to return a blue slip—named for the color of the paper form—to the Judiciary Committee for a particular judicial nominee from their home state, if they don't believe the nomination should advance. A spokesperson for Fetterman confirmed he had turned in a blue slip for Pozos on Friday.
This drew the ire of Demand Justice, which vowed on Friday to take out a six-figure ad campaign against the Pennsylvania Democrat for letting a "crony Trump judge" move toward confirmation.
"At a time when Trump is corrupting the courts with crony judges who will rig our economy and attack our rights and freedoms for decades," the group said, "Democrats cannot afford to treat these nominations like business as usual."
In an interview with Punchbowl News, Demand Justice president Josh Orton called on all Democrats, not just Fetterman, "to stand up to Trump’s attacks on the rule of law," imploring them to "do so in every room—not just on Twitter and not just on TV."
Demand Justice has argued that all of Trump's judicial nominees have refused to contradict the president's false claim that he won the 2020 election or to denounce the January 6 attack on the US Capitol, and has called on Democrats to block everyone he's nominated to the federal bench.
Progressive organizing group Indivisible also criticized Fetterman for enabling Pozos' nomination to go through, while hinting at a future primary challenger for the first-term senator should he run for re-election in 2028.
"Alleged Democrat John Fetterman has decided to let one of Trump’s judicial nominees move forward for a lifetime appointment," wrote Indivisible. "Fetterman’s betrayal of his voters and everything he claimed to campaign for is why he will be a one-term senator."
Fetterman in 2025 tied with Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) as the Senate Democrat who voted for the most Trump Cabinet nominations. Data published by VoteHub in February showed that Fetterman has voted on legislation with Trump more than any Democratic senator.
He is also the only Democrat in the Senate to consistently oppose war powers resolutions aimed at ending Trump's illegal war of choice with Iran.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Logical Conclusion' of Citizens United as Delaware Judge Lets Corporations Vote in Local Elections
Delaware is home to more corporations than people. Human people, that is, as under longstanding state law and the US Supreme Court's infamous 2010 ruling, corporations are people, too.
May 27, 2026
A judge in Delaware—a state with more registered business entities than people—ruled Monday in favor of a small town that allows corporations to vote in local elections.
Delaware Superior Court Judge Craig Karsnitz ruled that the town of Fenwick Island, population 400, did not violate the state Constitution by permitting business entities—which make up 12% of the town's "population"—to vote in municipal elections, as case plaintiff the ACLU of Delaware had claimed.
"What is a 'person?' When one cuts to the heart of this case, that is the question," Karsnitz wrote to open his 20-page ruling.
‼️‼️Delaware Superior Court upholds a municipal ordinance allowing individuals to cast votes on behalf of LLCs, trusts, and corporations in local elections against a challenge that the ordinance constitutes unlawful vote dilution for real persons under the state constitution. aboutblaw.com/blQg
[image or embed]
— Anthony Michael Kreis (@anthonymkreis.bsky.social) May 27, 2026 at 1:46 PM
"According to the law, a person is anyone or anything that can initiate and be subject to legal proceedings. By this conception, any adult, corporation, or institution is a person, but a minor is not a person, a fetus is not a person, and a humanoid robot... is not a person," the ruling continues. "This highlights that legal personhood is dependent solely on legal recognition."
The judge noted that in 2008, the Delaware General Assembly amended Fenwick Island's charter "to expand its voter registration rolls to allow individuals to cast votes on behalf of trusts, limited liability companies, partnerships, and corporations that own property in Fenwick."
"Today, the overwhelming majority of legal entity property owners in Fenwick registered to vote, and on whose behalf votes are cast, are trusts," Karsnitz added.
"I appreciate that Plaintiff may disagree with Delaware’s policy of authorizing certain municipalities to allow voting on behalf of entity property owners," the judge wrote.
"Visions of faceless large corporations, or even HAL, controlling a small town are frightening and the stuff of science fiction," he continued," referring to the malevolent artificial intelligence-powered computer in Stanley Kubrick's 1968 film version of Arthur C. Clarke's 2001: A Space Odyssey. "However, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that this policy violates the principle of one person/entity/one vote."
"Plaintiff points to no other persuasive independent authority than the Elections Clause of the Delaware Constitution itself," Karsnitz concluded. "And matters of policy are appropriately left to legislative bodies, not the courts."
Fenwick Island Mayor Natalie Magdeburger told Reuters earlier this year that "a property owner who pays taxes and is subject to our ordinances should have a say in who represents them on our Town Council."
Meanwhile, the ACLU of Delaware contends that "with over 2 million business entities incorporated in Delaware–roughly double the amount of actual people living in the state–the people of Delaware risk having their voices drowned out when towns like Fenwick Island allow corporate voting."
Karsnitz's ruling does not mention Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the 2010 US Supreme Court decision affirming that political spending by corporations, nonprofit organizations, labor unions, and other groups is a form of free speech protected by the 1st Amendment that government cannot restrict. The decision ushered in the era of super PACs—which can raise unlimited amounts of money to spend on campaigns—and secret spending on elections with so-called “dark money.”
While Delaware's corporate personhood laws long predate Citizens United, numerous critics of Monday's ruling referred to the case, including the progressive legal advocacy group Demand Justice.
"Corporations aren't people," the group asserted on X. "They don't have kids in local schools, they don't drink the water, they can’t be jailed for crimes, and they shouldn't get a vote."
Some compared Hawaii, where Democratic Gov. Josh Green recently signed legislation clarifying that corporations are not people, with Delaware.
"Hawaii made a move to rein in Citizens United," writer Van Dennis posted on X, "and Delaware responded, "The fuck you are."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Grave Danger': Warnings as Supreme Court Looks Ready to Hand Trump Even More Unchecked Power
The court's right-wing majority signaled a willingness to overturn the 90-year-old precedent Humphrey’s Executor—a move that would "enable Donald Trump’s corrupt march toward oligarchy," said one critic.
Dec 08, 2025
The warnings on Monday from the US Supreme Court’s liberal justices were stark as the Trump administration argued in favor of allowing the president to easily fire top officials at federal agencies—a move that would reverse nearly a century of precedent that originated with a unanimous ruling known as Humphrey's Executor in 1935.
"You're asking us to destroy the structure of government," Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who argued on behalf of the Trump administration that Humphrey's Executor limits presidential authority in an unconstitutional way even following rulings by the conservative majority that have weakened the decision.
Justice Elena Kagan added that setting aside the precedent and allowing President Donald Trump to fire Federal Trade Commission (FTC) board members and other federal agency leaders would “put massive, uncontrolled, unchecked power in the hands of the president.”
"Once you're down this road, it's a little bit hard to see how you stop," Kagan said.
But the court's right-wing majority signaled little concern about the unchecked authority it could give the president should it rule in Trump's favor in the coming months in Trump v. Slaughter, which centers on the White House's firing of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, a strong defender of consumer rights in March.
Slaughter has said she was dismissed for being "inconsistent with [the] administration's priorities" as the Department of Government Efficiency was gutting federal agencies and rooting out programs and employees that were also viewed as being in the way of Trump's right-wing agenda.
But under Humphrey's Executor, which was decided after former President Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to remove an FTC member, a president can fire a board member only for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office," in accordance with a law passed by Congress in 1914.
The ruling established that the president can remove executive officials without cause, but not at independent agencies that are "neither political nor executive, but predominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative," such as the FTC.
Sauer wrote in a court document that the ruling "was always egregiously wrong," furthering the argument made by right-wing proponents of the "unitary executive" theory—a view that holds that the president should hold absolute power over federal agencies, including by firing leaders they view as opposed to their agenda.
A lawyer for Slaughter, Amit Agarwal of Protect Democracy, told the justices on Monday that "dozens of institutions that have been around for a long time, that have withstood the test of time, that embody a distillation of human wisdom and experience, all of those would go south” if the court allowed the president to hold complete control over agencies.
Undoing Humphrey's Executor would “profoundly destabilize institutions that are now inextricably intertwined with the fabric of American governance," Slaughter's lawyers have argued.
Chief Justice John Roberts signaled an unwillingness to preserve the 90-year-old precedent, calling the ruling a "dried husk" at one point. Right-wing courts and justices have worked to weaken the precedent for more than a decade, with Roberts writing in a 2010 opinion that the president's power should be understood to include “the authority to remove those who assist him in carrying out his duties."
A decade later, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that the CFPB's structure itself was unconstitutional because the president does not have the authority to fire the director of the independent agency without just cause.
On Monday, Josh Orton, director of judiciary reform group Demand Justice, said there was "grave danger in what the Supreme Court appears willing to do today: hand giant corporations and Donald Trump’s billionaire class unchecked power over our economic system, gutting one of the few institutions left that’s charged with ensuring fairness, stability, and competition in our economy.
“For generations, independent federal agencies, including the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Reserve, have proven essential to the long-term stability of our country and markets—all to the benefit of workers, consumers, and businesses alike," said Orton.
A lower court ruled earlier this year that Slaughter had been illegally fired, but the Supreme Court in September allowed the dismissal to stand with an emergency order, until the case could be heard.
The Supreme Court has also permitted Trump to move forward, at least temporarily, with the firings of officials at the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
The justices on Monday signaled that even if they allow the president's firing of Slaughter and the other officials, they may not approve the dismissal of Federal Reserve Gov. Lisa Cook, who the court has permitted to stay in her role despite Trump's attempt to fire her. The court is scheduled to hear a separate case in January regarding Cook's firing.
But Kate Judge, a professor at Columbia Law School, said an overruling of Humphrey's Executor would ultimately have an impact on the Federal Reserve even if the justices carve out an exception.
"[The] Fed's practical independence and the legitimacy needed to sustain it grew alongside the independence of other agencies," said Judge. "It will be hard to maintain faith in one technocratic body while saying the rest are legitimate only because they are directly answerable to the president."
With or without an exception, Orton argued that "a Supreme Court that overturns Humphrey’s Executor and 90 years of precedent to enable Donald Trump’s corrupt march toward oligarchy is simply not a sustainable or legitimate institution.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Million-Dollar Ad Blitz Targets Senate Dems Who Voted for 'Trump Loyalist Judges'
"This isn’t normal," said the president of the group behind the ad campaign. "If Senate Democrats don’t take a stand and strongly oppose these judicial nominees who have disqualified themselves—we will."
Dec 03, 2025
The progressive advocacy group Demand Justice on Wednesday launched a seven-figure advertising campaign targeting three members of the Senate Democratic caucus who have voted to confirm President Donald Trump's lifetime judicial nominees, enabling the ongoing right-wing takeover of the nation's courts.
The first series of ads will target Sens. Maggie Hassan (D-NH), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), and Angus King (D-Maine), three of the 16 members of the Senate Democratic caucus who have voted to confirm at least one Trump judge this year. Other Senate Democrats who have voted with Republicans in support of at least one Trump judicial pick include Sens. Dick Durbin of Illinois, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Adam Schiff of California, and Chris Coons of Delaware.
"It is outrageous that Senate Democrats are voting to confirm Trump’s judicial nominees who refuse to tell the truth about January 6th and the 2020 election,” Josh Orton, the president of Demand Justice, said in a statement. “This isn’t normal. If Senate Democrats don’t take a stand and strongly oppose these judicial nominees who have disqualified themselves—we will. And we won’t let up.”
The group's campaign will also include a national cable TV ad buy and "coordinated digital rollout across key battleground states" naming and shaming Democrats who support "Trump loyalist judges" even as the lawmakers condemn the president's authoritarian assault on democracy.
Watch the Demand Justice ad targeting Maggie Hassan, who on Tuesday voted to confirm Lindsey Ann Freeman, Trump's nominee to the US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina:
Freeman, like other Trump judicial picks, refused during her confirmation process to say directly that the president lost the 2020 election.
"President Biden was certified as the winner of the 2020 presidential election and served as the 46th President of the United States," Freeman wrote in response to questions from Durbin, who ultimately voted in favor of her confirmation.
In a report released last month, Demand Justice analyzed Trump judicial picks' written responses to senators' questions. The analysis shows that "nominees' responses appear nearly identical, with many nominees using verbatim phrasing, repeating key words, and, overall, using unusual and evasive language that’s almost entirely outside the normal, historical, and common lexicon used to describe such events."
"Every nominee provided near-identical phrasing to avoid a direct answer about the 2020 election, instead referencing the results of the congressional 'certification' process, or answering by noting that President Biden 'served' as president," the report notes. "And 21 of 27 nominees provided extremely similar responses in regard to January 6, often describing what transpired as a 'political issue' and refusing to comment further."
Orton of Demand Justice said that "it is unprecedented for lifetime nominees to the federal bench to provide dishonest and misleading answers about historical facts—and it is deeply concerning that Trump’s nominees are parroting such strikingly similar language, the president’s own language, to avoid telling the truth."
That more than a dozen Senate Democrats still voted to confirm at least one of those nominees is "simply unacceptable," said Orton.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Report Highlights ‘Pattern of Dishonesty' on 2020 Election From Trump’s Far-Right Judicial Picks
“It is unprecedented for lifetime nominees to the federal bench to provide dishonest and misleading answers about historical facts," said the president of Demand Justice.
Nov 11, 2025
President Donald Trump has appointed 27 judges to federal courts so far in his second term, and in addition to their right-wing interpretation of the law, an analysis of the judges' comments to senators during the confirmation process reveals a key commonality between the president's appointees: All were willing to evade direct questions about whether Trump lost the 2020 election and whether the US Capitol was attacked by a violent pro-Trump mob on January 6, 2021.
Demand Justice examined the Questions for the Record (QFRs) that were submitted by the Senate to the 27 judicial nominees regarding the election and January 6, and found that their answers to those two specific questions were nearly uniform in many cases—repeating certain phrases verbatim and "overall, using unusual and evasive language that’s almost entirely outside the normal, historical, and common lexicon used to describe such events."
None of the 27 nominees affirmatively answered that former President Joe Biden won the 2020 election, as proven by numerous courts that rejected lawsuits claiming otherwise and by both Republican and Democratic election officials. Instead, the nominees said Biden was "certified" as the winner, and 16 of them said he "served" as president.
Some of the nominees, including Emil Bove of the US Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, Whitney Hermandorfer of the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, and Kyle Dudek of the Middle District of Florida, expanded on their answers, saying they would avoid "opining on the broader political or policy debate regarding the conduct of the 2020 presidential election."
Demand Justice said those comments "strongly, and falsely," suggested the 2020 election results are still a matter of legal dispute.
Josh Orton, president of the group, told MSNBC's "Morning Joe" on Tuesday that the nominees' answers preserved "their ability to say, 'I did not contradict Donald Trump' on what we know are the two most third-rail issues to Donald Trump."
"If nominees don't answer these two questions, I think it amounts to, essentially, a political loyalty test," said Orton.
NEW: Demand Justice report finds a pattern of dishonesty and evasion from Trump's judicial nominees. Watch as @joshorton explains on @Morning_Joe how Trump's judges are effectively taking loyalty tests to the President. pic.twitter.com/MFj2m8gElj
— Demand Justice (@WeDemandJustice) November 11, 2025
Regarding questions about whether the US Capitol was attacked on January 6 and whether the attack was an insurrection, said Demand Justice, "not one nominee was willing to speak to the events that occurred on that day."
Twenty-one of them, including Bove, Hermandorfer, and Joshua Divine of District Courts for the Eastern and Western Districts of Missouri, characterized the attack—in which Trump supporters tried to stop Congress from certifying the 2020 election results—as a matter of debate.
None of the nominees mentioned the law enforcement officers who died as a result of the attack, even though some mentioned violence against law enforcement broadly in their other QFR answers; the fact that the House and Senate chambers were broken into; or the death threats rioters directed at then-Vice President Mike Pence.
“It is unprecedented for lifetime nominees to the federal bench to provide dishonest and misleading answers about historical facts—and it is deeply concerning that Trump’s nominees are parroting such strikingly similar language, the president’s own language, to avoid telling the truth,” said Orton.
Orton added that "the kicker" of the report is that 15 members of the Democratic Caucus have voted for Trump's judicial nominees despite their evasive and dishonest answers about January 6 and Trump's 2020 loss.
"Excuse me? People died," said Orton. "If you're willing to appease Trump's big lies, you have no business anywhere near a court, period."
This morning, @joshorton unveiled a new report that found all 27 of Trump's judicial nominees, who have gone through the process in his second term, have used strikingly similar, evasive language to answer basic questions about the 2020 election and January 6th. Watch --> pic.twitter.com/WaqdyFcAC7
— Demand Justice (@WeDemandJustice) November 11, 2025
Democrats who have voted in favor of confirming Trump's nominees include Sens. Chris Coons (Del.), Tim Kaine (Va.), Mark Kelly (Ariz.), and Amy Klobuchar (Minn.).
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Critics Fear 'Presidency Without Limits' as Supreme Court Hears Tariffs Case
One critic warned a Trump win “will cement a precedent that expands his power as executive in a dangerous and unprecedented way.”
Nov 05, 2025
As the US Supreme Court on Wednesday began hearing arguments on the sweeping powers claimed by President Donald Trump to impose tariffs on foreign goods, many critics warned that the court would create a "presidency without limits" if it ruled in his favor.
In April, Trump unveiled unprecedented tariffs on nearly every nation in the world using powers granted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a law passed in 1977 that allows the president to regulate international commerce during major emergencies such as wars.
Many Trump critics believe that using this law as the legal foundation of a global tariff regime is a gross abuse of the law's original intent, and are urging the Supreme Court to shut it down.
Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at Stand Up America, warned that granting the president this level of authority over the taxation of imported goods would "open the door to broader abuses of power" by emboldening Trump to usurp even more authority from the US Congress.
“We’re already dangerously close to a presidency without limits," he said. "It’s time for the right-wing majority on the court to stand up for our Constitution and serve as a check on Trump’s power, starting with this case."
Josh Orton, president of progressive legal advocacy organization Demand Justice, also said that the tariff case before the Supreme Court "is about far more than an economic debate or a trade-law dispute," given its implications for the separation of powers laid out in the US Constitution.
"Trump is demanding that the court hand him raw power over the economy," said Orton. "If Trump wins here, he won’t just raise costs on American families. He will cement a precedent that expands his power as executive in a dangerous and unprecedented way—letting any president unilaterally rewrite trade law, punish certain industries, harm consumers, or leverage international allies for personal gain."
Leor Tal, campaign director at the progressive advocacy coalition Unrig Our Economy, argued that the Supreme Court wouldn't even need to hear the case on the Trump tariffs if Congress reasserted its authority given under the US Constitution to levy taxes.
“As the Supreme Court hears a case with implications for whether Americans can afford groceries, school supplies, and more, people will remember that Republicans in Congress could end these disastrous tariffs today and should have done so a long time ago," she said. “These tariffs are nothing more than a tax on working Americans, and Republicans in Congress have voted time and again to keep them in place... Republicans in Congress must act immediately to repeal Trump’s tariffs and finally put working people first."
During Wednesday's hearing on the tariffs case, conservative Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch raised concerns about allowing the president to usurp congressional powers in perpetuity by issuing emergency declarations that Congress must then vote to revoke before it can resume its duties outlined in Article I of the US Constitution.
"So Congress, as a practical matter, can't get this power back once it's handed it over to the president," Gorsuch remarked. "It's a one-way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch and away from the people's elected representatives."
Sauer tried to counter this by pointing to former President Joe Biden agreeing in 2023 to sign bipartisan legislation ending the national health emergency caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.
Gorsuch, however, countered that this only occurred with the president's consent, and that it would otherwise take a supermajority to end a declared emergency if the president elected to veto the congressional resolution.
Gorsuch: So congress as a practical matter, can't get this power back once it's handed it over to the president.. one way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch and away from the people's elected representatives. pic.twitter.com/secLyWMX7H
— Acyn (@Acyn) November 5, 2025
Justice Sonia Sotomayor also grilled Sauer on concerns about separation of powers, and she noted that the Constitution explicitly delegates taxation powers to Congress.
"It's a congressional power, not a presidential power, to tax," she said. "You want to say tariffs are not taxes, but that's exactly what they are. They're generating money from American citizens, revenue."
Justice Sotomayor asks about tariffs being a kind of tax on Americans and compares President Trump's emergency tariff Executive Orders to President Biden's student loan forgiveness policy and a hypothetical climate emergency. pic.twitter.com/nD0MYgVjv3
— CSPAN (@cspan) November 5, 2025
Ahead of the Supreme Court hearing this week, Trump posted a frantic message on his Truth Social platform warning justices that his power to unilaterally impose tariffs was a matter of "life or death" for the United States.
""With a Victory, we have tremendous, but fair, financial and national security," he claimed. "Without it, we are virtually defenseless against other countries who have, for years, taken advantage of us."
Meanwhile, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said on social media Wednesday that "Trump’s tariffs are sending small businesses to an early grave."
"Trade authority begins and ends with Congress," the senator added. "I’ll keep battling to rein in Trump’s tariff madness and protect small businesses, farmers, and families."
Keep ReadingShow Less
By Limiting Nationwide Injunctions, Supreme Court Declares 'Open Season on All Our Rights'
In a ruling that stems from the president's birthright citizenship order, the "conservative supermajority just took away lower courts' single most powerful tool for reining in the Trump administration's lawless excesses."
Jun 27, 2025
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a flurry of decisions Friday morning, including a ruling related to U.S. President Donald Trump's attack on birthright citizenship that led legal experts, elected Democrats, immigrants, and rights advocates to warn—as MoveOn Civic Action spokesperson Britt Jacovich put it—that the justices "just made it easier for Trump to take away your rights."
Three different federal judges had granted nationwide injunctions blocking Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship with an executive order that Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, described as "blatantly illegal and cruel." Rather than considering the constitutionality of the president's order, the justices examined the relief provided by lower courts.
"The Supreme Court has green-lighted Trump to run roughshod over a critical constitutional right. This is not a slide into authoritarianism—this is a one-way plummet."
In Friday's 6-3 ruling for Trump v. CASA, the right-wing justices held that "universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts," with Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, delivering the majority opinion.
"The Supreme Court's conservative supermajority just took away lower courts' single most powerful tool for reining in the Trump administration's lawless excesses," wrote Slate's Mark Joseph Stern. "I understand there is some debate about the scope of this ruling, but my view remains that the Supreme Court has just effectively abolished universal injunctions, at least as we know them. The question now is really whether lower courts can craft something to replace them that still sweeps widely."
"Trump's Justice Department is about to file a motion in every lower court where it faces a universal injunction citing this case and arguing that the injunction must be narrowed," the journalist explained. "This will have huge downstream consequences for a ton of other extraordinarily important and controversial cases."
Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned a dissent, joined by the other two liberals, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also wrote her own. Many other critics of the high court's majority decision echoed their warnings about the expected consequences of the ruling.
"The Supreme Court has green-lighted Trump to run roughshod over a critical constitutional right. This is not a slide into authoritarianism—this is a one-way plummet," said Analilia Mejia and DaMareo Cooper, co-executive directors of the grassroots coalition Popular Democracy, in a Friday statement.
"This ruling takes away the power of lower courts to block unconstitutional moves from the government on a federal level— allowing the government to act with impunity and apply law inconsistently across the country," they stressed. "As Justice Sotomayor wrote, 'No right is safe in the new legal regime this court creates.'"
Congresswoman Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), the daughter of Guatemalan immigrants and a citizen by birthright, said Friday that "I agree, Judge Sotomayor, no right is safe under the new regime, not even the ones clearly guaranteed under our Constitution."
"For more than 100 years, the 14th Amendment has reaffirmed that all people born in the U.S. are U.S. citizens, with equal rights under the law. It has been and is the law of the land, consistently upheld by courts and scholars across the political spectrum," she noted. "But in limiting nationwide injunctions, Trump's loyalists have decided to—once again—put him above the rule of law, our Constitution, and the principles of our nation."
Caroline Ciccone, president of the watchdog Accountable.US, highlighted that same line from Sotomayor and also explained that "results like this are the result of a yearslong takeover by Trump and special interest allies to capture the courts and install conservative majorities that help him advance an extreme ideological agenda."
"Let's be clear: The Trump administration appealed this case to undermine the power of federal judges, rather than address his blatantly unconstitutional executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship," Ciccone said.
Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at the progressive advocacy group Stand Up America, said that "as Justice Jackson notes, 'The court's decision to permit the executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law.'"
"Today, six justices on the Supreme Court eliminated one of the most effective checks on Donald Trump, clearing a path for him to impose his extreme, anti-democratic agenda on any American who can't afford a lawyer or doesn't join the game of litigation Whac-A-Mole now required to protect their basic rights," he added. "This ruling should send a chill down every American's spine."
Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) also described the decision as chilling and argued on social media that "the Supreme Court is declaring open season on all our rights."
U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, called out the high court for failing "every American," and said that "we must heed Justice Jackson's warning," citing that same line from her dissent.
Maggie Jo Buchanan, interim executive director of the group Demand Justice, pointed to another line, agreeing that "as Justice Jackson wrote in her dissent, the court has created an 'existential threat' to the rule of law and the system of checks and balances upon which our nation was founded."
"The same six justices who gave Trump king-like immunity for criminal acts have now limited the ability of the judicial branch to protect everyday Americans from unconstitutional or illegal executive overreach," she said, referring to a decision issued a year ago. "Just as Republican leaders in Congress duck their heads and carry out Trump's bidding, the Republican appointees on the court do so as well."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) also took aim at both his GOP colleagues and the justices, saying that "the Supreme Court's decision to limit courts of their long-held authority to block illegal executive actions is an unprecedented and terrifying step toward authoritarianism, a grave danger to our democracy, and a predictable move from this extremist MAGA court."
"Congressional Republicans have to choose between being bystanders or co-conspirators," Schumer added, urging them to challenge Trump. "Congress must check this unimpeded power, but for that to happen, Republican members must stand up for core American democratic values and not for unchecked presidential power of the kind that our Founders most deeply feared."
In addition to sounding the alarm about what the high court's decision means for all future legal battles, critics noted that although the justices didn't weigh in on Trump's birthright citizenship order, it could soon start to impact families nationwide.
"The administration's attempt to deny citizenship to many children born in the United States is unquestionably unconstitutional, and nothing in today's Supreme Court opinion suggests otherwise. Yet, the court has nonetheless created a real risk that the administration's unconstitutional order will go into effect in many parts of the country in 30 days," said Sam Spital, associate director-counsel at the Legal Defense Fund (LDF), vowing to continue the fight against the order.
FWD.us president Todd Schulte pointed out that with its new ruling, "the Supreme Court has opened the door to a fractured system in which a child born in one state is recognized as a citizen, but a child born in another is not."
"If the president's order is allowed to go into effect by the lower courts, there will be immediate chaos for parents, hospitals, and local officials, and long-term harm for families and communities across the country," he warned.
Juana, a pregnant mother, CASA member, and named plaintiff in a lawsuit over the order, said Friday that "I'm heartbroken that the Supreme Court chose to limit protections instead of standing firmly for all families like mine."
"Every child born here deserves the same rights, no matter who their parents are," Juana declared. "I joined this lawsuit not just for my baby, but for every child who deserves to be recognized as fully American from their first breath. We won't stop fighting until that promise is real for everyone."
Shortly after the ruling, organizations including the ACLU, Democracy Defenders Fund, and LDF filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of a proposed class of babies subject to Trump's executive order and their parents.
"The Constitution guarantees birthright citizenship, and no procedural ruling will stop us from fighting to uphold that promise," said Tianna Mays, legal director for Democracy Defenders Fund. "Our plaintiffs, and millions of families across this country, deserve clarity, stability, and justice. We look forward to making our case in court again."
Keep ReadingShow Less
House GOP Passes Bill That Moves Toward Making Trump a 'King With Unlimited Power'
"House Republicans want to make it harder for federal courts to serve as a check on Trump's lawlessness and overreach," said one advocate. "But that's not how our democracy works."
Apr 10, 2025
With the Trump administration's attacks on the First Amendment, birthright citizenship, and other constitutional rights in full swing, Republicans in the U.S. House on Wednesday passed a bill that one advocacy group called a "sneak attack" on another bedrock principle of U.S. democracy.
"The passage of the No Rogue Rulings Act (NORRA) is an ideological attack on the checks and balances of our Constitution," said Celina Stewart, CEO of the League of Women Voters.
The bill, which passed 219-213, with only Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio) joining Democrats in opposing it, would limit U.S. District Court judges' ability to issue nationwide injunctions blocking President Donald Trump's executive orders.
The legislation was proposed by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) after federal judges blocked several actions by Trump, including his executive order aiming to end birthright citizenship, his mass expulsion of immigrants to El Salvador's prison system, his freeze on federal grants and loans, and the so-called Department of Government Efficiency's (DOGE) mass firings of federal employees.
NORRA "brings us one step closer to dismantling our democracy for the benefit of one man and his extreme agenda that is actively harming people across the country," said Maggie Jo Buchanan, interim executive director of the judicial reform group Demand Justice. "Anyone who voted in favor of this bill failed them and our country today."
"Passage of this bill by the U.S. House is an overreach on the part of the legislative branch, and we urge the U.S. Senate to reject this legislation when it comes to the floor."
Members of the judiciary including Judges James Boasberg, Paul A. Engelmayer, and John Batestes have faced calls for impeachment over their respective rulings blocking Trump from sending planeloads of immigrants to El Salvador, barring DOGE from accessing the Treasury Department's payment system, and directing federal health agencies to restore public health data to their websites after Trump ordered them to delete it.
With impeachment votes unlikely to succeed, Stewart said the legislation proposed by Issa "is a political attempt to restrain and block our federal courts from their constitutional responsibility."
"Judges appointed to the federal bench are independent bodies that review executive and legislative actions to determine their constitutionality. This is a simple process that has been in place for centuries," said Stewart.
"The League believes that all powers of the U.S. government should be exercised within the constitutional framework to protect the balance among the three branches of government," she added. "Passage of this bill by the U.S. House is an overreach on the part of the legislative branch, and we urge the U.S. Senate to reject this legislation when it comes to the floor."
Christina Harvey, executive director of the progressive advocacy group Stand Up America, suggested that in their attacks on federal judges, Republicans are trying to weaken "the first line of defense against Donald Trump's attempts to cut essential services and attack our freedoms."
"In response to legal rulings that haven't gone Trump's way, House Republicans want to make it harder for federal courts to serve as a check on Trump's lawlessness and overreach," said Harvey. "But that's not how our democracy works. Trump is a president bound by the checks and balances of our Constitution, not a king with unlimited power."
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) pointed to the landmark Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education to highlight the irrationality of Republicans' attempt to bar judges from applying their rulings to the entire nation.
"A nationwide injunction is a necessary part of the judicial tool kit," Raskin told NBC News. "Why should every person affected [by an issue] have to go to court? Why should millions of people have to create their own case? Why should Brown vs. Board of Education have applied to just Linda Brown as opposed to everybody affected?"
Harvey called on Senate leaders to "uphold their oath and block any attempt to weaken the federal courts."
"Anything less," she said, "would be walking away from their constitutional duties."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Alarm as Federal Judges Face Threats of Violence After Ruling Against Trump
"When you can't win in court, set loose your flying monkeys to intimidate judges and their families?" asked one Democratic senator. "That's the America we want?"
Mar 20, 2025
Since U.S. President Donald Trump took office in January, the judicial branch has served as something of a firewall against some of his attempts to subvert congressional authority and undermine long-established constitutional law, with federal judges blocking his orders to end birthright citizenship, cut foreign aid funding, and other parts of his agenda.
But as the rulings have been met with relief from rights advocates, the judges who have handed down the decisions have faced mounting threats from anonymous people or groups who appear to support Trump—with remarks from Republican lawmakers and the president himself only emboldening the threats of violence.
As The New York Times reported Wednesday, judges who have ruled against the administration's policies in recent weeks have received "bomb threats, anonymous calls to dispatch police SWAT teams to home addresses, even the delivery of pizzas, a seemingly innocuous prank" which is meant to convey an ominous message, suggested one judge who was targeted.
"They know where you and your family members live," said the judge, who is overseeing a case pertaining to the Trump administration.
On Tuesday, Trump called for the impeachment of Chief Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and derided him as a "radical left lunatic" after Boasberg barred the administration from deporting Venezuelan immigrants to El Salvador under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. His comments followed those of Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas), who pledged to file articles of impeachment against the "activist" judge.
Trump's remarks prompted U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to warn that "impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision," advising those who oppose federal rulings to do so via "the normal appellate review process."
Roberts' warning didn't stop anonymous critics on social media from demanding that Boasberg be sent to Guantánamo Bay "for 20 years" and calling him a "terrorist-loving judge."
Far-right conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer, who traveled with Trump during his campaign last year, told her 1.5 million social media followers that the judge's family "is a national security threat."
U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) on Thursday likened the response of Trump and the MAGA movement to the judiciary to setting loose "flying monkeys to intimidate judges and their families."
Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one of the court's right-wing judges who was appointed by Trump, broke with the other conservative justices earlier this month when she ruled against the president's freeze on foreign aid—prompting allies of the president to deride Coney Barrett as a "closet Democrat" and a "DEI hire," referring to diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives that Trump has pushed to end.
Days after the ruling, Coney Barrett's sister received a threat—which turned out to be false—that there was a pipe bomb in her mailbox.
Judge John C. Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington also reported that he had been targeted by a "swatting" attack, in which a false tip was sent to local law enforcement, prompting officers to show up at the judge's home expecting to find an armed intruder. The attack followed Coughenour's ruling that blocked Trump's order attempting to abolish birthright citizenship.
Reuters reported earlier this this month that "U.S. marshals have warned judges of unusually high threat levels."
"Security has been bolstered for some judges assigned cases over Trump administration initiatives," the outlet reported.
The government watchdog Public Citizen said the threats against judges who rule against Trump is a "red flag."
"This presidency is starting to look a lot like a dictatorship," said the group.
Maggie Jo Buchanan, interim executive director of the court reform advocacy group Demand Justice, said that "judges should not face threats of impeachment, violence, or worse, simply for doing their jobs and upholding their oaths to the rule of law and Constitution."
"Criticism and public discourse around rulings is a part of our democracy," said Buchanan. "Threats and intimidation are not."
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