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
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
Most Popular