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
judiciary
Don’t Despair: Trump Keeps Losing Bigly
The courts, backed by impacted people, are proving to be a significant check on Trump’s thirst for absolute power.
Sep 05, 2025
US President Donald Trump is on a losing streak this week. Just look at the latest judicial decisions challenging his policies, from mass deportations to tariffs to his troop deployments to US cities.
The courts are proving to be a significant check on Trump’s thirst for absolute power.
These cases illustrate the point:
Immigration
Over Labor Day weekend, Immigration and Customs Enforcement attempted to begin deporting up to 700 unaccompanied Guatemalan children. In the dead of night, the first children were loaded onto planes in south Texas. “These are unaccompanied children who do not have a parent or a guardian with them,” Efrén Olivares, an attorney representing the minors, said on the Democracy Now! news hour.
At 1:00 am on Sunday morning, Olivares and his colleagues filed an emergency complaint with the federal court in Washington, DC. Judge Sparkle Sooknanam was woken after 2:00 am, and by 4:00 am she issued a temporary restraining order blocking the deportations until the children had the immigration hearings to which they have a legal right.
Meanwhile in Texas, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, considered the nation’s most conservative, ruled that Trump’s use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport people was illegal.
Tariffs
The Appeals Court in Washington DC ruled that Trump’s so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs were illegal and unconstitutional, noting that only Congress has the power to impose tariffs. The ruling was “a sweeping decision that unequivocally rebukes President Trump’s idea that he can impose tariffs on American consumers on his own,” Neal Katyal, the attorney who argued the case, said on Democracy Now!
Domestic Deployment of the Military
Trump says, “We’re going in,” threatening to invade Chicago using, among other forces, the Texas National Guard.
But in California, a federal judge, invoking the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act that bars the use of military in domestic law enforcement, ruled in favor of Gov. Gavin Newsom, finding Trump’s deployment of the California National Guard to the streets of Los Angeles, along with several hundred US Marines, was illegal. Judge Charles Breyer, the brother of retired US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, issued an injunction barring the Trump administration from “deploying, ordering, instructing, training, or using the National Guard currently deployed in California, and any military troops [from] engaging in arrests, apprehensions, searches, seizures, security patrols, traffic control, crowd control, riot control, evidence collection, interrogation, or acting as informants.”
These are just a few of the recent court cases that have rebuked Trump as he attempts to subvert the US Constitution.
We recently got a personal glimpse into what judicial wins over Trump look like. In the high mountain air of Telluride, Colorado, we had a chance to spend time with E. Jean Carroll, the renowned advice columnist and journalist. She was at the Telluride Film Festival for the premier of the new documentary, Ask E. Jean.
Carroll had a long and storied career as the advice columnist for Elle Magazine, and has published several books. In recent years she became known as one of the most prominent women to accuse Donald Trump of sexual abuse, saying he raped her in the dressing room of the Bergdorf Goodman department store in the mid-1990s, in Manhattan.
The courts are playing a central role in opposing the lawless Trump administration, but the core of the resistance are people.
Carroll sued Trump in civil court, and a jury found him guilty of sexually abusing her. Judge Lewis Kaplan wrote, “Trump did in fact ‘rape’ Ms. Carroll as that term commonly is used and understood.” She was awarded a $5 million settlement from Trump. After the verdict, he called her a liar. She then sued for defamation, and won an additional jury award of $83.3 million.
Carroll cut an elegant figure, walking along Telluride’s main avenue with the sweeping Continental Divide as a backdrop. Her film premiered to rave reviews, and, should there remain a film distributor in this country not cowed by threats of lawsuits from Trump, it should be available for viewing by a wide audience. The film highlights the story of one courageous woman refusing to be defined as a victim of Donald Trump, providing inspiration, no doubt, to the hundreds of survivors of Trump’s old friend, the now-dead sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein. Many of them spoke this week outside the US Capitol, demanding the full release of the Epstein files. The Trump administration, which controls the files, is resisting.
Behind each lawsuit are impacted people, whether immigrant children pulled from their beds in the middle of the night and thrown on planes, or people standing up in the streets of LA confronting illegally deployed troops, whether sexual abuse survivors banding together, or federal workers fired en masse.
The courts are playing a central role in opposing the lawless Trump administration, but the core of the resistance are people–people at every level organized in opposition, defending democracy.
Keep ReadingShow Less
By Keeping Climate Funds on Ice, the DC Circuit Is Complicit in Trump’s Overreach
By refusing to act, the DC Circuit has turned oversight into obstruction, procedure into punishment, as it helps the executive hollow out Congress’ most basic power.
Sep 03, 2025
On September 2 the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ruled that $16 billion in climate grants will remain frozen. The case, Climate United Fund v. Citibank and Environmental Protection Agency, grew out of the Trump administration’s February decision to halt the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. The order was only a few lines long, a clerk’s note that the mandate would be withheld until rehearing petitions were resolved. In appellate procedure, withholding the mandate means the decision below is not yet enforceable. The court could have allowed the money to move while review continued. It chose not to.
This is not paperwork. This is power. Power in this case means leaving billions locked in a Citibank vault while families ration air conditioning, patch storm-wrecked homes, and haul water across dry land.
The money is real. Congress appropriated it. Treasury obligated it. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) awarded it. Projects were ready. Tribal governments had contractors lined up to install solar pumps. Rural co-ops had bids in hand to replace cracked water lines. Community lenders had retrofits prepared for families who spend half their paychecks on electricity. Yet the funds remain frozen, generating interest for a bank that once needed a taxpayer bailout and still bankrolls oil expansion.
Judges call this a pause. A pause in Washington is a crisis everywhere else.
Maria Ortega in Phoenix knows it. She is 76, widowed, living on a fixed income in a house that traps the heat. Phoenix endured its fourth hottest summer on record, with 12 days at or above 110°F this July. Maria shut off her air conditioning most afternoons to avoid a $287 bill, half her Social Security check. The thermostat read 98°F. She sipped water slowly, blinds drawn, a box fan pushing hot air. At night she ran the AC for three hours so she could sleep. She asked a question no one should face: Is surviving this month worth going hungry next month?
Daniel Robinson outside New Orleans knows it too. Another September storm peeled shingles from his roof. He was 19 when Katrina came. He rebuilt, married, worked double shifts. He was told resilience would come. But this fall he found himself again hammering blue tarps while his kids carried buckets. Federal funds exist for stronger roofs and elevated homes. They were approved, obligated, ready. But they remain locked in limbo.
And Sarah Begay on the Navajo Nation knows it as well. She drives every other day to a community well, filling barrels for her livestock. The dirt tanks her father used have been dry for years. Gas prices climb, the miles wear down her pickup. She was told federal money was coming for solar pumps. Instead she is told to wait.
Three people, three regions, one reality: Delay is not neutral. It kills.
Maria is not waiting for abstractions. She is waiting for a power bill she can pay.
Judges insist they are bound by law, not outcomes. But law already spoke. Congress passed the appropriation. Treasury obligated it. EPA awarded it. The Constitution gives Congress the purse for a reason. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 codified that a president cannot cancel or withhold funds Congress has approved. President Richard Nixon tried, and Congress stopped him. What this administration has done—freezing appropriations indefinitely under the language of review—is a backdoor impoundment. And by withholding the mandate, the DC Circuit has not merely tolerated this maneuver. It has validated it.
This is the judiciary’s quiet habit: Retreat into formalism while people pay the price. Courts claim neutrality but exercise discretion constantly—choosing when to grant stays, when to expedite review, when to let money flow. To call delay neutral is a fiction. Delay is a ruling in all but name. The choice to freeze funds is as consequential as striking them down.
The consequences reach far beyond climate. If this precedent stands, any appropriation can be stalled. Veterans’ healthcare, housing aid, disaster relief—all can be frozen at a president’s discretion so long as courts are willing to play along. Congress will hold the purse only on paper. In practice, presidents will wield the choke chain, and judges will provide cover.
Every day of delay bleeds value. A retrofit not installed means another summer of unbearable bills. A pump not delivered means another year of hauling water. A roof not secured means another tarp, another moldy wall, another child growing up in a house that never dries. A dollar spent today prevents five dollars in damage tomorrow. A dollar withheld compounds harm. The storm does not wait for petitions. The fire does not wait for oral arguments. The flood does not wait for a court’s sense of timing.
Judicial restraint here is not harmless. It is complicity. By refusing to act, the DC Circuit has turned oversight into obstruction, procedure into punishment. It has helped the executive hollow out Congress’ most basic power. It has reduced law to theater while real life burns.
Maria is not waiting for abstractions. She is waiting for a power bill she can pay. Daniel is not waiting for legal formalities. He is waiting for a roof that will hold. Sarah is not waiting for judicial review. She is waiting for water that flows.
The storm will not wait. The fire will not wait. The flood will not wait. Politicians will still gather in front of cameras to praise oversight and congratulate themselves on restraint. Judges will polish their dockets and write opinions about consistency.
But history will record something else. The money was there. The need was there. The chance was there. And power chose not to use it. That is not oversight. That is abdication. It is not neutrality. It is complicity. And it is a verdict that will damn the judiciary as much as the executive.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Unfit and Unqualified': Senate GOP Confirm Pro-Trump 'Attack Dog' Jeanine Pirro as US Attorney
"By confirming Pirro," said one critic, "Senate Republicans made one thing clear: they care more about pleasing Donald Trump than honoring their constitutional duty to advise and consent on presidential nominations."
Aug 03, 2025
The far-right former Fox News commentator Jeanine Pirro was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on Saturday night in a strictly party-line vote to become the next U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, a position progressive critics and Democratic opponents warn she is deeply unqualified to hold.
Pirro, who has been serving as the acting U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C. since May, has a long history of spewing far-right conspiracy theories on air and throwing facts to the wind when it comes to lining up behind President Donald Trump. Pirro was a prominent figure when Dominion Voting Systems sued Fox News for defamation over the outlet's coverage of the 2020 election and she was a vocal proponent of Trump's "Big Lie" that the voting was rigged against him.
Christina Harvey, executive director of the pro-democracy group Stand Up America, condemned Pirro's confirmation.
"Republicans have handed the keys to our nation's capital to a Trump loyalist with zero credibility and a track record of unhinged extremism," warned Harvey. "Keanine Pirro isn't a serious prosecutor—she's a partisan attack dog who's made a name for herself by promoting conspiracy theories and threatening to criminally investigate January 6 prosecutors in the office she was just confirmed to oversee. A Fox News producer once called her a 'reckless maniac.'"
"By confirming Pirro," added Harvey, "Senate Republicans made one thing clear: they care more about pleasing Donald Trump than honoring their constitutional duty to advise and consent on presidential nominations. Qualifications, independence, integrity—none of it matters. Just blind loyalty."
The vote in the Senate was 50-45, with every Republican voting for Pirro and every member of the Democratic caucus voting against. Five senators did not cast a vote.
Congressional Democrats voiced their contempt for Pirro both leading up to the vote and following it.
"Pirro should never be a permanent U.S. Attorney," declared Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, just after the vote was finalized. "She endorsed the firing of January 6 prosecutors. She recklessly spread the Big Lie to the point her *own producers* had to tell her to cool it. Ultimately, she’s a rubber stamp for Donald Trump."
Ahead of the vote, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) explained his opposition to her confirmation, saying Pirro was "deeply unfit and unqualified" and describing her as "a loyal acolyte and sycophant" of Trump.
"She is not objective, she is not independent," said Blumenthal. "Instead she has made her mark spreading damaging, offensive conspiracy theories."
Jeanine Pirro is deeply unqualified & unfit to be the United States Attorney for DC. She is simply a loyal acolyte & sycophant of the President. She is not objective, she is not independent. Instead she has made her mark spreading damaging, offensive conspiracy theories. pic.twitter.com/H8cmQ6ZzvD
— Richard Blumenthal (@SenBlumenthal) August 2, 2025
Last week, Rep. Jeremy Raskin (D-Md.), ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to Senate leadership urging against Pirro's confirmation, calling her a threat to the government's independent judiciary and unfit to run the U.S. Attorney's office in D.C., the largest of its kind in the nation.
"Over the past decade, Ms. Pirro has consistently demonstrated that her loyalty lies with Donald Trump the person, not with the Constitution or the rule of law," said Raskin in a letter addressed to Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Democratic Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.
"Her blind loyalty to Donald Trump at the exclusion of other principles, her embarrassing support of the 'big lie' that the 2020 election was rigged in the face of all evidence to the contrary and 60 federal and state court decisions rejecting such claims, her unswerving defense of convicted January 6th rioters, and her incendiary rhetoric that urges President Trump to seek retribution against his alleged enemies," continued Raskin, "all make it clear that she lacks the intellectual honesty, personal principles, temperament, integrity, and fundamental constitutional fidelity required to lead this important office."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular