Legal Challenges Brew for Trump's Tariffs
Happy Wednesday! Attention Dispatch Premium members: We're hosting our Dispatch Premium Town Hall tonight at 8 p.m. ET to preview our forthcoming staff editorial. If you'd like to attend this special live town hall, be sure to join Dispatch Premium before tonight's event!
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky confirmed Monday that Ukrainian troops were fighting in the Belgorod region of Russia, which borders Ukraine. 'We continue to carry out active operations in the border areas on enemy territory,' he said, adding that the operations were aimed at easing pressure on other parts of the front line. Zelensky's statement marked his first public acknowledgment of the limited offensive, which began in late March. Russian state sources had previously claimed that attempted Ukrainian advances in the region had been repelled. Meanwhile, on Tuesday, Zelensky said Ukrainian forces had captured two Chinese nationals fighting on behalf of Russia in eastern Ukraine's Donetsk region.
Stocks continued to fall Tuesday, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average down 0.8 percent, the S&P 5oo declining by 1.6 percent, and the Nasdaq Composite dropping 2.2 percent. Short-lived gains in the morning were dashed as the administration doubled down on its tariff rollout. Appearing before the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said the duties would take effect Wednesday despite ongoing negotiations with trading partners. Meanwhile, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed plans to impose 104 percent levies on all Chinese goods effective today.
President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed four executive orders aimed at reviving coal production in the United States. The orders directed the federal government to allow coal leasing on public land, keep some coal plants that had been set for retirement open, and order agencies to assess how coal could be used to meet rising energy demands from artificial intelligence data centers. As a percentage of U.S. power generation, coal—the most polluting fossil fuel—has declined from nearly 50 percent in 2011 to 15 percent in 2024.
The Trump administration froze $1 billion in federal funding to Cornell University and $790 million to Northwestern University on Tuesday, a month after launching civil rights investigations into both schools. Speaking to the New York Times, two unnamed U.S. officials said the pause comes mostly from grants and contracts with the Departments of Health and Human Services, Education, Defense, and Agriculture. The Justice Department is investigating both universities—along with several other schools, including Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, and Brown—over allegations of widespread antisemitism on campus.
U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee, ruled Tuesday that the White House must fully reinstate the Associated Press to its press pool. The Trump administration began barring AP reporters from press events in February, after the news agency refused to change its style guide to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the 'Gulf of America.' In a 41-page decision, McFadden wrote that the AP's ban constituted a 'brazen' violation of the First Amendment: 'Under the First Amendment, if the Government opens its doors to some journalists—be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere—it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints. The Constitution requires no less.'
The Supreme Court on Tuesday halted an order from U.S. District Judge William Alsup that would have required the White House to reinstate 16,000 probationary workers fired across multiple federal agencies. In an unsigned order, seven justices said that the environmental groups and nonprofits that brought the lawsuit lacked the legal standing to sue. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor declined to join in the order, which did not address the broader legal questions surrounding the Trump administration's sweeping layoffs.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Tuesday announced plans to launch a primary challenge against Republican Sen. John Cornyn, who has served in the upper chamber since 2002. Paxton was impeached by the Texas House of Representatives in 2023 but later acquitted by the state Senate. A securities fraud case against him was dismissed in 2024 after he agreed to pay restitution and perform community service. 'I'm announcing that I'm running for U.S. Senate against John Cornyn, who apparently is running again for his fifth term, which would put him there three decades,' he told Fox News Tuesday. 'It's definitely time for a change in Texas.'
The markets have continued to sour on President Donald Trump's tariffs on nearly all imports to the United States. Major stock indices have been on successive roller coasters of daily trading, reacting positively to indications the president might relent but then quickly falling after Trump signals he plans to stay his course. Wall Street CEOs have begun publicly voicing criticisms. Even Elon Musk reportedly urged Trump over the weekend to reverse the duties, and he's begun using Peter Navarro—the senior counselor for trade and manufacturing to the president—as an online punching bag.
But the president has forged ahead with a tariff regime that, if continued, could constitute the largest tax increase in more than 40 years. Trump threatened Monday to bring tariffs on imports from China up to a whopping 104 percent, a threat the White House followed through on as of 12:01 this morning. During a speech at a National Republican Congressional Committee dinner last night, the president also said he would soon levy additional tariffs on pharmaceuticals. Now, court challenges backed by some conservative legal groups are gaining steam.
On Thursday, the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), a nonprofit legal advocacy group supported by Federalist Society co-chairman Leonard Leo, filed a lawsuit on behalf of a Florida-based stationary company, Simplified, that relies on materials imported from China. The lawsuit alleges the Trump administration's earlier batch of tariffs in February—which imposed a 10 percent duty on all Chinese imports and 25 percent tariffs on Mexican and Canadian imports—were unconstitutional.
For that first round of tariffs, as well as last week's 'Liberation Day' measures, Trump relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—a 1977 law empowering the president to scrutinize foreign entities and financial transactions, including by imposing sanctions, when dealing with a national emergency. The president cited the synthetic opioid supply chain from China as the national emergency justifying across-the-board tariffs on Chinese imports. But the NCLA argues that IEEPA does not delegate any tariff power to the executive. 'That is a statute that authorizes presidents to order sanctions as a rapid response to international emergencies,' the group noted in its filing. 'It does not allow a president to impose tariffs on the American people.'
The lawsuit may have a point: Nowhere in IEEPA is tariff or taxation power mentioned, though presidents have used the law to impose sanctions on countries or freeze financial assets. Former President Joe Biden used IEEPA authority to institute a sweeping sanctions regime on Russia following its invasion of Ukraine. And during his first term, Trump used IEEPA to freeze the assets of a Venezuelan state-owned oil company providing funds to the Maduro regime.
Before February, however, no president had ever used the act to impose tariffs. According to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress holds the tariff power, which it has partially delegated to the president in a handful of laws. Trump took advantage of this delegated authority to implement tariffs on things like steel, aluminum, solar panels, and washing machines during his first term. But those laws circumscribe the president's exercise of tariff power, limiting the scope and criteria of allowable duties imposed by the executive branch.
For example, the Trade Act of 1974 allows the executive to impose tariffs on imports that threaten national security, while the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 allows for tariffs in response to other countries' violation of trade agreements. 'In each of these instances, the Congress has required that various procedures be followed, that investigations into the specific products, practices or countries be conducted, and that certain factual findings be made before tariffs can be imposed,' Jennifer Hillman, a Georgetown law professor who focuses on international trade, explained in a February brief on Trump's tariffs.
Under these laws, duties can't be imposed in a day simply at the whim of the president—it took the better part of the year to follow the statutorily designated processes and fact-finding required for the first Trump administration's tariffs. The Simplified lawsuit argues that Trump's novel interpretation of IEEPA threatens all of Congress' tariff authority: 'If the president is permitted to use the IEEPA to bypass the statutory scheme for tariffs, the president will have nearly unlimited authority to commandeer Congress's power over tariffs.'
NCLA also argues that even if IEEPA authorizes some tariffs, Trump's measures would still exceed the restrictions of the law since it limits presidential actions to those 'necessary' to address the emergency. 'The means of an across-the-board tariff does not fit the end of stopping an influx of opioids, and is in no sense 'necessary' to that stated purpose,' NCLA stated, noting that Trump has said publicly the tariffs' purposes involve unrelated policy goals like generating revenue for the federal government.
Legal observers see the administration's interpretation of IEEPA as such a stretch that it could run afoul of the Supreme Court's major questions doctrine. The doctrine holds that if the executive is seeking to use congressionally delegated power on an issue of major national significance, then that power must be clearly specified in the authorizing statute. And if tariffs on the hundreds of billions of dollars in annual U.S. imports from China are an issue of national significance, Trump's subsequent tariffs on nearly all imports are exponentially so. 'Here, there is no question that this is a major question,' Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, told TMD. 'It's more of a massive thing than any of the other measures the Supreme Court has struck down because they're major questions, like Biden's student loan forgiveness program. That was pretty big, but this is even bigger.'
Somin is working with the Justice Liberty Center, a conservative nonprofit law firm, to recruit plaintiffs to file a challenge to Trump's 'Liberation Day' bevy of tariffs. 'We are still in the stage of recruiting plaintiffs and making agreements with them, but it is likely we will be done with that soon,' he said, 'and at that point, we will bring our case.' While Somin said he believes the China tariffs at issue in the Simplified suit are also illegal, he argued the broader tariffs that he plans to challenge are even more glaringly unconstitutional. 'The 'Liberation Day' declaration is not about fentanyl,' Somin said. 'Rather, it's about the idea that bilateral trade deficits are somehow a national emergency.'
'We say there's no actual emergency because bilateral trade deficits are not some kind of unexpected crisis,' he added. 'There's no extraordinary or unusual threat.'
Beyond the legal arguments, Somin also emphasized the practical significance of the president's use of IEEPA going unchallenged: 'If he can tariff any country to any degree he wants for any reason, any time he wants, then effectively, the word of the United States and a trade agreement is no good.'
John McCormack
When Gavin Newsom was waging his primary bid to be California's governor, he promised voters on the campaign trail in December 2017: 'You're going to have the opportunity to elect the next head of the resistance.' After steamrolling his Democratic and Republican opponents in 2018, Newsom governed with exactly that vision in mind.
Politics April 8, 2025
Nick Catoggio
Chris Sununu and 2028.
World Events April 9, 2025
Cliff Smith
USAID cuts hinder Ukrainian efforts to facilitate media coverage and counter propaganda.
Politics April 9, 2025
Jonah Goldberg
The markets don't lie.
Podcast April 9, 2025
Jonah Goldberg
That Scott Lincicome is so hot right now!
Podcast April 8, 2025
Sarah Isgur and David French
Plus: Can the president fire federal probationary employees?
Writing for The Atlantic, Jonathan Chait took Democrats to task for their reluctance to attack President Donald Trump's tariff policies head-on. 'At some point, Trump might backtrack on his trade war or pivot to a completely different set of policy obsessions. Perhaps by 2028, Democratic voters will be focused on bringing back Social Security or ending the war in Greenland. But to the extent that the tariffs define Trump's economic mismanagement, a modulated stance on tariffs is going to become awkward for Democrats,' he wrote. 'Not long ago, the political logic of rejecting free trade made a certain degree of sense for Democrats. But events have a way of changing political logic. A trade-skeptical message that worked perfectly well five or 10 years ago is going to sound awfully out of touch after Trump is done turning tariffs into a synonym for catastrophic ineptitude.'
The Economist examined the emerging face-off between Israel and Turkey in Syria, as the two powers seek to expand their influence in the war-shattered country: 'Israel is worried by the scale of Turkey's involvement in Syria, including its plans to set up military bases and supply the new government's fledgling army with weapons. Turkey fears that Israel wants to see Syria implode, or break apart. Each accuses the other of preparing to wage war by proxy. … Israel and Turkey also disagree about governance. Israeli officials have openly suggested a federal model for Syria, whereby different minorities, including the Kurds and the Alawites (a Muslim sect from which the Assads hail), would enjoy extensive autonomy. The recent massacres of hundreds of Alawite civilians by armed groups loyal to Syria's new rulers, they argue, show that [Ahmed al-Sharaa] cannot be trusted. Mr Sharaa and his Turkish allies have had a wholly different system in mind: a strong central government headed by a president with sweeping executive powers.'
New York Times: Chinese Intelligence May Be Trying to Recruit Fired U.S. Officials
The National Counterintelligence and Security Center warned on Tuesday that China's intelligence services were using deceptive efforts to recruit current and former U.S. government employees.
…
The American government has long said that China uses social networks to secretly recruit people. But former U.S. officials say China now sees an opportunity as the Trump administration shuts down agencies, fires probationary employees and pushes out people who had worked on diversity issues.
NewsNation: Stephen A. Smith Considering 2028 Presidential Run
Florida beat Houston in the NCAA Championship Monday night in an instant classic, ending with the heartbreaking conclusion we've come to expect from March Madness. Gators fans went to bed happy. Cougars fans? Well, you can probably guess from that last possession.
Do you think the groups challenging the Trump administration's tariffs have a strong case?
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Axios
14 minutes ago
- Axios
MAGA's warning to Trump's heir
MAGA's growing independence as a political force is an early warning to the GOP's next leader about the limits — and dangers — of inheriting a populist juggernaut. Why it matters: Even when President Trump is out of sync with MAGA — like on Jeffrey Epstein — he can still bring supporters to heel. That power stems from the personal loyalty and shared enemies they've forged over a decade of political warfare. But as both MAGA diehards and establishment Republicans have long acknowledged, there's only one Trump. Whoever comes next won't command the same personal allegiance — or the same ability to rein in the base if it veers from the party's regularly scheduled programming. Driving the news: For a brief moment last month, the tail was wagging the dog. The MAGA base erupted over the Trump administration's insistence that there was nothing more to know about Epstein's sex trafficking operation and 2019 death in prison. Trump, visibly annoyed by his supporters' obsession, attempted to divert attention to his record and new conspiracy theories about his political opponents. MAGA grumbled that Trump was out of touch, and warned that the administration was bleeding trust. But the flare-up didn't last. A Wall Street Journal piece tying Trump to Epstein snapped the movement back into line, uniting them against the "fake news." Then came Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard's flurry of new disclosures about the 2016 Russia investigation, redirecting MAGA outrage toward the "Deep State." Trump's gravitational pull did the rest. The big picture: The Epstein uproar showcased a new degree of independence for the 10-year-old MAGA movement, which was built on the personality and prowess of one man. MAGA sources warn the movement's appetite for unity won't naturally extend to anyone not named Donald Trump, and that future leaders will be on far shorter leashes if they cross the base on its core issues. What they're saying: "The reason Trump can be so formidable is he inspires that fanatical degree of direct loyalty. And it also means people in his own party can't easily stand against him without everyone getting very angry at them," one MAGA media figure told Axios. "What will be hard to capture is Trump's authenticity. That's what makes him so beloved…That engenders a level of trust from the base that I've never really seen before in my political life," added one MAGAworld operative. "The smartest candidate will understand that everything is in deference to the base and present it that way." Zoom out: Some Trump allies have been more successful than others in winning over the MAGA base. Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio are now beloved, having convinced supporters that they've genuinely learned from their past criticisms of Trump or "neoconservative" views. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), meanwhile, is still viewed skeptically by MAGA, which recognizes his personal friendship with Trump but disdains his support for stronger U.S. involvement abroad, including aid to Ukraine. Between the lines: Breitbart editor-in-chief Alex Marlow told Axios there's a blueprint for MAGA's next leader, but that "they are going to have to earn it the way [Trump] did." "The formula is not hard to follow: make the centerpiece of the agenda issues that are popular with base voters (America First nationalism) and average Americans (populism), ignore the left, ignore the GOP establishment as much as possible, and don't get wrapped up in every online frenzy," Marlow said. "Rack up victories as quickly as humanly possible to control the media narrative. Do this and you'll build a track record. If you can do that while communicating well, the base will be there for you." The bottom line: Any Republican with presidential ambitions will have to woo the base to even get close to Trump's grassroots dominance.

15 minutes ago
‘They roll right over': Many Democrats call their party weak and ineffective, AP-NORC poll finds
WASHINGTON -- Many Democrats see their political party as 'weak' or 'ineffective,' according to a poll that finds considerable pessimism within Democratic ranks. Republicans are more complimentary of their party, although a small but significant share describe the GOP as 'greedy' or say it is generally "bad." The poll conducted by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research in July reveals warning signs for both major U.S. parties as the political focus shifts to elections in New Jersey and Virginia this fall and the midterm contests next year. Respondents were asked to share the first word or phrase that came to mind when they thought of the Republican and Democratic parties. Answers were then sorted into broad categories, including negative and positive attributes. Overall, U.S. adults held a dim view of both parties, with about 4 in 10 using negative attributes, including words such as 'dishonest' or 'stupid." But nearly nine months after Republican Donald Trump won a second presidential term, Democrats appear to be harboring more resentment about the state of their party than do Republicans. Democrats were likelier to describe their own party negatively than Republicans. Republicans were about twice as likely to describe their own party positively. 'They're spineless,' Cathia Krehbiel, a 48-year-old Democrat from Indianola, Iowa, said of her party. She believes the party's response to the Trump administration has been 'scattershot.' 'I just feel like there's so much recently that's just going abhorrently wrong," Krehbiel said. "And they speak up a little bit and they roll right over.' Overall, roughly one-third of Democrats described their party negatively in the open-ended question. About 15% described it using words like 'weak," or 'apathetic,' while an additional 10% believe it is broadly 'ineffective' or "disorganized.' Only about 2 in 10 Democrats described their party positively, with roughly 1 in 10 saying it is 'empathetic,' or 'inclusive.' An additional 1 in 10 used more general positive descriptors. It is unclear what impact the Democrats' angst may have on upcoming elections or the political debate in Washington, but no political organization wants to be plagued by internal divisions. Still, the Democrats' frustration appears to reflect their concern that party leaders are not doing enough to stop Trump's GOP, which controls Washington. There is little sign that such voters would abandon their party in favor of Trump's allies in upcoming elections, and the vast majority of Democrats described the GOP negatively. But disaffected Democrats might decide not to vote at all. That could undermine their party's push to reclaim at least one chamber of Congress in 2026. Jim Williams, a 78-year-old retiree from Harper Woods, Michigan said he typically supports Democrats, but he is 'disappointed' with the party and its murky message. He feels much worse about the Republican Party, which he said 'has lost it' under Trump's leadership. 'All he does is bully and call names. They've got no morals, no ethics. And the more they back him, the less I like them,' the self-described independent, said of Trump. Republicans are about twice as likely as Democrats to describe their party positively, with many also using straightforward ideological descriptors like 'conservative.' About 4 in 10 Republicans used positive attributes to characterize the GOP, making general mentions of words such as 'patriotic' or 'hardworking,' or offering associations with the word 'freedom.' Samuel Washington, 65, of Chicago, said he typically votes Republican. Washington praised Trump's leadership, even while acknowledging that the president's policies on trade and spending might be creating short-term economic hardship. 'There's a lot of pain, but the pain is the result of 12 years of misuse and misguided leadership from the Democratic Party,' he said. 'I'm feeling really good about Republicans and the direction that they're going.' But views were not uniformly good. About 2 in 10 Republicans said something negative about the party, including phrases such as 'greedy,' 'for the rich' or 'corrupt.' Republican Dick Grayson, an 83-year-old veteran from Trade, Tennessee, said he is 'disappointed' by his party's fealty to Trump. Among other things, he pointed to the price tag of Trump's tax-and-spend package, which will add nearly $3.3 trillion to the nation's debt over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. 'I've always been a Republican, but I'm disillusioned about both parties,' Grayson said. Among all Americans, the poll finds that the Republican Party is viewed slightly more negatively than the Democratic Party. The different is not large: 43% used negative words to describe the Republicans, compared with 39% for the Democrats. Much of the negativity is driven by the opposing party — and independents' distaste for both. Independents are much likelier to describe both parties with negative attributes rather than positive descriptors, though a significant share did not offer an opinion at all. Curtis Musser, a 60-year-old unaffiliated voter from Beverly Hills, Florida, said both parties have shifted too far toward the extreme for his liking. He said he is ready for a serious third party to emerge before the next presidential election, pointing to Elon Musk's new 'America Party,' which has been slow to launch. 'Maybe he would get us headed in the right direction,' the retired schoolteacher said. ___ Peoples reported from New York. ___ The AP-NORC poll of 1,437 adults was conducted July 10-14, using a sample drawn from NORC's probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 3.6 percentage points.

15 minutes ago
The Justice Department seeks voter and election information from at least 19 states, AP finds
NEW YORK -- The requests have come in letters, emails and phone calls. The specifics vary, but the target is consistent: The U.S. Department of Justice is ramping up an effort to get voter data and other election information from the states. Over the past three months, the department's voting section has requested copies of voter registration lists from state election administrators in at least 15 states, according to an Associated Press tally. Of those, nine are Democrats, five are Republicans and one is a bipartisan commission. In Colorado, the department demanded 'all records' relating to the 2024 election and any records the state retained from the 2020 election. Department lawyers have contacted officials in at least seven states to propose a meeting about forging an information-sharing agreement related to instances of voting or election fraud. The idea, they say in the emails, is for states to help the department enforce the law. The unusually expansive outreach has raised alarm among some election officials because states have the constitutional authority to run elections and federal law protects the sharing of individual data with the government. It also signals the transformation of the Justice Department's involvement in elections under President Donald Trump. The department historically has focused on protecting access to the ballot box. Today, it is taking steps to crack down on voter fraud and noncitizen voting, both of which are rare but have been the subject of years of false claims from Trump and his allies. The department's actions come alongside a broader effort by the administration to investigate past elections and influence the 2026 midterms. The Republican president has called for a special prosecutor to investigate the 2020 election that he lost to Democrat Joe Biden and continues to falsely claim he won. Trump also has pushed Texas Republicans to redraw their congressional maps to create more House seats favorable to the GOP. The Justice Department does not typically 'engage in fishing expeditions' to find laws that may potentially have been broken and has traditionally been independent from the president, said David Becker, a former department lawyer who leads the nonprofit Center for Election Innovation and Research. 'Now it seems to be operating differently,' he said. The department responded with an emailed 'no comment' to a list of questions submitted by the AP seeking details about the communications with state officials. Election offices in Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Utah, and Wisconsin confirmed to the AP that they received letters from the voting section requesting their statewide voter registration lists. At least one other, Oklahoma, received the request by phone. Many requests included basic questions about the procedures states use to comply with federal voting laws, such as how states identify and remove duplicate voter registrations or deceased or otherwise ineligible voters. Certain questions were more state-specific and referenced data points or perceived inconsistencies from a recent survey from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, an AP review of several of the letters showed. The Justice Department already has filed suit against the state election board in North Carolina alleging it failed to comply with a part of the federal Help America Vote Act that relates to voter registration records. There are signs the department's outreach isn't done. It told the National Association of Secretaries of State that 'all states would be contacted eventually,' said Maria Benson, a NASS spokeswoman. The organization has asked the department to join a virtual meeting of its elections committee to answer questions about the letters, Benson said. Some officials have raised concerns about how the voter data will be used and protected. Election officials in at least four California counties — Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego and San Francisco —said the Justice Department sent them letters asking for voter roll records. The letters asked for the number of people removed from the rolls for being noncitizens and for their voting records, dates of birth and ID numbers. Officials in Arizona, Connecticut, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Wisconsin confirmed to the AP that they received an email from two department lawyers requesting a call about a potential 'information-sharing agreement.' The goal, according to several copies of the emails reviewed by the AP, was for states to provide the government with information about instances of election fraud to help the Justice Department 'enforce Federal election laws and protect the integrity of Federal elections.' One of those sending the emails was a senior counsel in the criminal division. The emails referred to Trump's March executive order on elections, part of which directs the attorney general to enter information-sharing agreements with state election officials to the 'maximum extent possible." Election officials in several states that received requests for their voter registration information have not responded. Some said they were reviewing the inquiries. Officials in some other states provided public versions of voter registration lists to the department, with certain personal information such as Social Security numbers blacked out. Elsewhere, state officials answered procedural questions from the Justice Department but refused to provide the voter lists. In Minnesota, the office of Secretary of State Steve Simon, a Democrat, said the federal agency is not legally entitled to the information. In a July 25 letter to the Justice Department's voting section, Simon's general counsel, Justin Erickson, said the list 'contains sensitive personal identifying information on several million individuals.' He said the office had obligations under federal and state law to not disclose any information from the statewide list unless expressly required by law. In a recent letter, Republican lawmakers in the state called on Simon to comply with the federal request as a way "to protect the voting rights of the citizens of Minnesota.' Maine's secretary of state, Democrat Shenna Bellows, said the administration's request overstepped the federal government's bounds and that the state will not fulfill it. She said doing so would violate voter privacy. The department 'doesn't get to know everything about you just because they want to,' Bellows said. There is nothing inherently wrong with the Justice Department requesting information on state procedures or the states providing it, said Justin Levitt, a former deputy assistant attorney general who teaches at Loyola Law School. But the department's requests for voter registration data are more problematic, he said. That is because of the Privacy Act of 1974, which put strict guidelines on data collection by the federal government. The government is required to issue a notice in the Federal Register and notify appropriate congressional committees when it seeks personally identifiable information about individuals. Becker said there is nothing in federal law that compels states to comply with requests for sensitive personal data about their residents. He added that while the outreach about information-sharing agreements was largely innocuous, the involvement of a criminal attorney could be seen as intimidating. 'You can understand how people would be concerned,' he said.