Latest news with #FederalistSociety
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
The Federalist Society isn't going anywhere
President Donald Trump said the Federalist Society gave him 'bad advice' on judicial nominations. He's still appointing their members to the federal bench anyway. On Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will consider nominees for seats on the federal bench, including Emil Bove, Trump's No. 3 at the Justice Department and an outsider to some mainstream conservative legal circles. Bove's nomination has divided the right over whether Trump was eschewing the traditional conservative Federalist Society pipeline in favor of his own brand of loyalist nominees. But even amid a schism between Trump and the Federalist Society, the president's orbit has continued to embrace lawyers and jurists who have ties to the most influential conservative legal group. In a sign of the continued alignment between the Federalist Society and the administration, the Senate Judiciary Committee will also vote Thursday on a different slate of judicial nominees, all five of whom are members of the Federalist Society, according to their disclosures and the Federalist Society website. 'The Federalist Society is just interwoven into the conservative legal establishment,' said Russell Wheeler, a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who studies the judiciary. For all Trump's indignation, the majority of his picks thus far are 'not only Federalist Society members, they're proud Federalist Society members,' Wheeler said. The Federalist Society is an influential conservative legal group whose ranks have included some of the nation's most powerful judges, and its chapters on law school campuses have operated as a training ground for future conservative jurists. In Trump's first term, the organization's former Executive Vice President Leonard Leo served as a key adviser to the president on judicial nominations. The White House ultimately nominated and confirmed hundreds of judges to the federal bench, including three Supreme Court justices. As some of the judges Trump nominated have ruled in ways he doesn't like — and in particular in the wake of a ruling from the U.S. Court of International Trade that nullified Trump's tariffs — the president announced in a post on Truth Social that he had cut ties with Leo. He called his onetime adviser on Supreme Court nominees a 'sleazebag' and lamented his disappointment in the Federalist Society for the people the organization had recommended. But it does not appear Republican Senators on the Judiciary Committee — even some of the president's staunchest allies — share Trump's new animosity towards the Federalist Society. 'We'll go to people that I've always relied upon to give me advice,' said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a current member and former chair of the committee. 'The Federalist Society, I've known for a long time, I'll still keep talking to [them]." "I'm going to work with people that want to talk to me,' echoed Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), chair of the committee. 'Would we sit down and talk to them and have discussions with them? The answer is, we'll talk to anybody.' And others warn that most qualified candidates are still going to come from the group. 'Unless they use Federalist Society association as something that actually stops someone from getting a nomination, I don't think it's going to make a difference, and if they did take that step, the talent pool would shrink dramatically,' said an individual familiar with the administration's judicial selection process granted anonymity to speak candidly. A White House official said in a statement that Trump relies on 'his senior advisors, White House Counsel, and the Department of Justice' in the judicial selection process. 'The mold by which President Trump chooses judges is that of Justices [Clarence] Thomas and [Samuel] Alito and the late Justice [Antonin] Scalia,' the official said. 'Outside entities, including hometown senators, think tanks, and others, are always free to share their recommendations, but the President and his team will be the ultimate decision-makers.' There has been a notable exception to the administration's continued affinity for Federalist Society-approved lawyers. Bove, who if confirmed would hold a lifetime seat on the powerful Third Circuit Court of Appeals, has come under scrutiny for his controversial maneuvering to fulfill Trump's political agenda at the Department of Justice. The president's one-time criminal defense attorney, not a typical Federalist Society candidate for the federal bench, is facing allegations by a former lawyer at the Department of Justice that he suggested the administration should go against court orders. Some in the conservative legal sphere have questioned his nomination out of concern that he would unduly prioritize loyalty to the president. Michael Fragoso, former chief counsel to Mitch McConnell, who as Senate Republican leader shepherded the hundreds of nominees that Trump confirmed in his first term, underscored that if the most qualified candidates were Federalist Society members, Trump would still choose them. 'If you look at who's being nominated by and large really, I think Emil [Bove]'s probably the only exception,' said Fragoso, adding that Trump's second term judicial picks are for the most part, 'pretty traditionalist Federalist Society people.' Fragoso is supporting Bove's nomination. Behind the scenes, the Federalist Society has continued to angle for influence, despite Trump's frustration. Mike Davis, an outside adviser to the White House on judicial nominations, said the Federalist Society's new president, Sheldon Gilbert, reached out to him around the time he took over the organization in early 2025. Gilbert expressed that he wanted to mend fences with Trump's orbit, and the two ate lunch together, Davis said. The Federalist Society did not respond to a request for comment. 'Having new leadership is an important step in the right direction, but the problem with [the Federalist Society is] they need to stop being the string orchestra on the Titanic,' said Davis, a former staffer to Grassley. 'They want to look majestic as the ship is going down.' In other words, the Federalist Society needs to supply lawyers who will contribute meaningfully to the president's legal aims, Davis said. Trent McCotter, a former Justice Department official and Federalist Society member who worked on judicial nominations during Trump's first term, feels similarly. He said the number one priority for judicial nominees going forward should be a 'proven track record of doing conservative work.' 'Membership in the Federalist Society is a signal, but it's a relatively weak one,' McCotter said. 'What you've been doing, putting your name on and filing, arguing in court for the last year or five years or 10 years, those are things that demonstrate much more what a person thinks about the law.' 'There will presumably still be nominees who are members of the Federalist Society,' he said. 'It just won't be the same kind of signal that it used to be.' Tessa Berenson Rogers contributed to this report.
Politico
3 days ago
- Politics
- Politico
The Federalist Society isn't going anywhere
President Donald Trump said the Federalist Society gave him 'bad advice' on judicial nominations. He's still appointing their members to the federal bench anyway. On Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will consider nominees for seats on the federal bench, including Emil Bove, Trump's No. 3 at the Justice Department and an outsider to some mainstream conservative legal circles. Bove's nomination has divided the right over whether Trump was eschewing the traditional conservative Federalist Society pipeline in favor of his own brand of loyalist nominees. But even amid a schism between Trump and the Federalist Society, the president's orbit has continued to embrace lawyers and jurists who have ties to the most influential conservative legal group. In a sign of the continued alignment between the Federalist Society and the administration, the Senate Judiciary Committee will also vote Thursday on a different slate of judicial nominees, all five of whom are members of the Federalist Society, according to their disclosures and the Federalist Society website. 'The Federalist Society is just interwoven into the conservative legal establishment,' said Russell Wheeler, a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who studies the judiciary. For all Trump's indignation, the majority of his picks thus far are 'not only Federalist Society members, they're proud Federalist Society members,' Wheeler said. The Federalist Society is an influential conservative legal group whose ranks have included some of the nation's most powerful judges, and its chapters on law school campuses have operated as a training ground for future conservative jurists. In Trump's first term, the organization's former Executive Vice President Leonard Leo served as a key adviser to the president on judicial nominations. The White House ultimately nominated and confirmed hundreds of judges to the federal bench, including three Supreme Court justices. As some of the judges Trump nominated have ruled in ways he doesn't like — and in particular in the wake of a ruling from the U.S. Court of International Trade that nullified Trump's tariffs — the president announced in a post on Truth Social that he had cut ties with Leo. He called his onetime adviser on Supreme Court nominees a 'sleazebag' and lamented his disappointment in the Federalist Society for the people the organization had recommended. But it does not appear Republican Senators on the Judiciary Committee — even some of the president's staunchest allies — share Trump's new animosity towards the Federalist Society. 'We'll go to people that I've always relied upon to give me advice,' said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a current member and former chair of the committee. 'The Federalist Society, I've known for a long time, I'll still keep talking to [them].' 'I'm going to work with people that want to talk to me,' echoed Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), chair of the committee. 'Would we sit down and talk to them and have discussions with them? The answer is, we'll talk to anybody.' And others warn that most qualified candidates are still going to come from the group. 'Unless they use Federalist Society association as something that actually stops someone from getting a nomination, I don't think it's going to make a difference, and if they did take that step, the talent pool would shrink dramatically,' said an individual familiar with the administration's judicial selection process granted anonymity to speak candidly. A White House official said in a statement that Trump relies on 'his senior advisors, White House Counsel, and the Department of Justice' in the judicial selection process. 'The mold by which President Trump chooses judges is that of Justices [Clarence] Thomas and [Samuel] Alito and the late Justice [Antonin] Scalia,' the official said. 'Outside entities, including hometown senators, think tanks, and others, are always free to share their recommendations, but the President and his team will be the ultimate decision-makers.' There has been a notable exception to the administration's continued affinity for Federalist Society-approved lawyers. Bove, who if confirmed would hold a lifetime seat on the powerful Third Circuit Court of Appeals, has come under scrutiny for his controversial maneuvering to fulfill Trump's political agenda at the Department of Justice. The president's one-time criminal defense attorney, not a typical Federalist Society candidate for the federal bench, is facing allegations by a former lawyer at the Department of Justice that he suggested the administration should go against court orders. Some in the conservative legal sphere have questioned his nomination out of concern that he would unduly prioritize loyalty to the president. Michael Fragoso, former chief counsel to Mitch McConnell, who as Senate Republican leader shepherded the hundreds of nominees that Trump confirmed in his first term, underscored that if the most qualified candidates were Federalist Society members, Trump would still choose them. 'If you look at who's being nominated by and large really, I think Emil [Bove]'s probably the only exception,' said Fragoso, adding that Trump's second term judicial picks are for the most part, 'pretty traditionalist Federalist Society people.' Fragoso is supporting Bove's nomination. Behind the scenes, the Federalist Society has continued to angle for influence, despite Trump's frustration. Mike Davis, an outside adviser to the White House on judicial nominations, said the Federalist Society's new president, Sheldon Gilbert, reached out to him around the time he took over the organization in early 2025. Gilbert expressed that he wanted to mend fences with Trump's orbit, and the two ate lunch together, Davis said. The Federalist Society did not respond to a request for comment. 'Having new leadership is an important step in the right direction, but the problem with [the Federalist Society is] they need to stop being the string orchestra on the Titanic,' said Davis, a former staffer to Grassley. 'They want to look majestic as the ship is going down.' In other words, the Federalist Society needs to supply lawyers who will contribute meaningfully to the president's legal aims, Davis said. Trent McCotter, a former Justice Department official and Federalist Society member who worked on judicial nominations during Trump's first term, feels similarly. He said the number one priority for judicial nominees going forward should be a 'proven track record of doing conservative work.' 'Membership in the Federalist Society is a signal, but it's a relatively weak one,' McCotter said. 'What you've been doing, putting your name on and filing, arguing in court for the last year or five years or 10 years, those are things that demonstrate much more what a person thinks about the law.' 'There will presumably still be nominees who are members of the Federalist Society,' he said. 'It just won't be the same kind of signal that it used to be.' Tessa Berenson Rogers contributed to this report.
The Hill
18-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Emil Bove will make an excellent circuit court judge
Emil Bove will make an excellent addition to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. We know this because the three of us shepherded 252 Article III judges to confirmation under President Trump as Republican chief counsels for nominations on the Senate Judiciary Committee under Chairmen Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Lindsey Graham. (R-S.C.). Collectively, we have more knowledge and experience than anyone about what worked, what didn't, and what to look for going forward. And we know that Bove is a great pick. Bove is unquestionably qualified for the job. Indeed, his resume looks just like those of Trump's best judges. He excelled academically, completed prestigious clerkships, served the nation as a federal prosecutor, and then took on a consequential political appointment. That mirrors the career trajectories of Judge Paul Matey on the Third Circuit, Judge Patrick Bumatay on the Ninth Circuit, and Judge Jay Richardson on the Fourth Circuit — three of the best circuit judges Trump has appointed. Bove is cut from the same cloth. Some claim that Bove's lack of attachment to the Federalist Society is a problem. They are wrong. Putting aside that these attacks often come from erstwhile Federalist Society critics, it's a misplaced concern. The three of us have all been involved with the Federalist Society at some point in our careers. First and foremost, the Federalist Society never 'picked judges.' Second, membership in the organization itself does not qualify someone to be a judge. Federalist Society membership has traditionally been meaningful to the selection process because the society was an incubator for conservative legal ideas — for decades the only place where they were debated. It was therefore a helpful proxy for legal conservatism. But by its own account, its members cross the political spectrum. Membership was and is an imperfect proxy for legal conservatism. What matters is not whether a nominee is affiliated with the Federalist Society, but whether he or she is a legal conservative. Bove's background shows that he is a legal conservative at both the theoretical and practical level. He clerked for two upstanding judicial conservatives — Richard Sullivan and Richard Wesley. Judge Sullivan was subsequently elevated by Trump to the Second Circuit, where he has distinguished himself. Judge Wesley has had many clerks work in both Trump administrations. Before that, Bove was a research assistant for Professor Nicholas Rosenkranz, a longtime member of the Federalist Society board of directors. Rosenkranz even thanked Bove in the acknowledgements of his most influential academic article, which made a significant contribution to modern understandings of originalism and textualism. Those real-world contributions say more about Bove's commitment to legal conservatism than any membership card. Practically speaking, Bove has spent the last five months managing a counterinsurgency against the legal-progressive guerrilla war being run out of blue-state district courts. The extent of the onslaught has been unprecedented. Resistance judges' lawless theories are being bandied about as if the last 30 years of Supreme Court precedent had never happened. In these cases, Bove has supervised a robust defense of executive power and managed a powerful offensive against liberal radicalism and its protection of transgender extremism, antisemitism, and mass illegal immigration. He has shown that he understands the practical reality of legal conservatism and is committed to advancing it. It is simply not credible to claim that someone in Bove's position right now is not aligned with legal conservatism; to see why, just look at all the liberal career attorneys who decided to pack their desks rather than join Bove in that fight. Finally, Bove's rise to prominence might be the best evidence of all. He had a successful career as a prosecutor and was a partner at a highly respected New Jersey law firm. He put that all aside to defend Trump against Democrats' lawfare. Only the most rabid anti-Trump extremist would deny that Bove's decision took incredible courage. It is courage and fortitude that turns legal conservatism into judicial reality. Trump chose well in picking Bove for the Third Circuit. He has strong credentials and a strong theoretical and practical understanding of legal conservatism. And he has demonstrated courage and commitment to those ideas in the face of tremendous hostility. He should be confirmed and appointed expeditiously. Andrew Ferguson is chairman of the Federal Trade Commission and was the Republican chief counsel for nominations on the Senate Judiciary Committee from January 2019 until July 2019. Michael Fragoso is a partner at Torridon Law PLLC and was the Republican chief counsel from July 2019 until August 2021. Mike Davis is president of the Article III Project and was Republican chief counsel from July 2017 until January 2019.
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
How Judges Can Use a Roberts-Invented Judicial Tool to Curb Trump
Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily. On top of his legally dubious commandeering of the California National Guard and the Pentagon's deployment of Marines to (it claims) protect federal assets, President Donald Trump appears to be perilously close to invoking a law from the early 19th century, the Insurrection Act, as a basis for deploying regular troops to police American cities. While shocking, it is unfortunately not surprising: Trump regrets not having invoked the act to respond to protests in 2020, having been talked down by the 'adults' in his administration. With the adults long since dismissed and Congress missing in action, resistance to this Trump power grab could come from an unlikely source: federal judges. Packing the judiciary was the crowning achievement of the president's first term, which resulted in a stable of young, Trump-appointed conservative judges trained by their Federalist Society boosters. Some of these same appointees might be standing in the way of Trump's most dangerous overreaches, which to survive judicial review would require judges to exhibit broad deference to the executive branch. Trump appears frustrated by this irony on many fronts. At the end of May, a long-simmering rupture finally spilled into the open when the president took to Truth Social to lambast 'sleazebag' Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society, perhaps the most influential political organization so far this century. The trigger? A pair of court decisions, one signed by a Trump appointee, declaring the White House's tariff regime unlawful. (One of the district courts temporarily stayed its own order, and an appeals court later stayed the other decision from taking effect while the administration appeals.) At first blush, the outburst might seem confounding. After all, during the Trump administration's first term, the White House and Leo worked hand in glove to stock the federal courts, above all the Supreme Court, with appointees drawn from the ranks of the Federalist Society and its allies. The results were the most consequential achievement of Trump's first presidency, leading most notably to the overturning of Roe. However, today's MAGA movement, perhaps more than in its first iteration, has a set of ideological commitments of its own—namely, a muscular, personalist, and near-monarchical vision of executive authority (especially within certain issue areas like trade and immigration). And these priors sit uneasily alongside the Federalist Society's decadeslong bid to rein in the regulatory state that it believes bedevils corporate interests. In fact, these competing priorities have been set on a collision course for some time: The MAGA 2.0 movement's policy ambitions require precisely the type of bold, transformative executive power that the anti-administrative conservative legal apparatus has spent the past several decades attempting to frustrate. This tension also demonstrates precisely why the administration's opponents should continue to invoke Roberts court precedents, including those they might philosophically disagree with, to oppose the administration's harmful policy agenda: Such arguments could be successful, even in conservative courts. And if progressive litigants lose with these claims, it is not all bad news. As we have argued elsewhere, litigants using anti-administrative doctrines against Trump policies could lead Trump-aligned judges to curb those doctrines, which might make future progressive governance easier. Nowhere is the overall MAGA–vs.–Federalist Society dynamic clearer than in the chaos over Trump's tariff policy. In April, industry and states launched a wave of litigation challenging the legality of Trump's steep and widely applied 'liberation day' tariffs. The litigants claimed that the tariffs would raise prices, disrupt their supply chains, and otherwise increase the costs of doing business. One tool that the plaintiffs in all three lawsuits wielded is the major questions doctrine, a rule that was formally established in a landmark 2022 decision issued by the conservative Supreme Court supermajority that Trump built during his first term. After bubbling under the surface since the early 2000s, the major questions doctrine emerged in West Virginia v. EPA to herald a new, less deferential regime in review of agency policymaking. Under the doctrine, if an agency action is 'major'—if it is novel, transformative, and economically and politically significant—then it can survive only if Congress quite specifically directed the action. During the Biden administration, the high court repeatedly invoked the doctrine to cut down a host of progressive regulations, including the Clean Power Plan, the COVID-19 eviction moratorium, and student-debt cancellation. Lower courts got in on the action too, using the major questions doctrine to stymie several Biden efforts. And the doctrine has metastasized beyond the regulatory context, with courts applying it to individual enforcement actions, agency guidance documents, and presidential actions. Much to the chagrin of progressive lawyers, who hoped to forestall such a development, the doctrine may have all but become, in the words of Judge Jed Rakoff, 'at bottom, a principle of statutory construction,' apparently applicable wherever statutes are interpreted. Yet, now that he has returned to the White House, Trump has to contend with anti-administrative thinking, like the major questions doctrine, fashioned by the very Supreme Court supermajority he constructed, including in the context of tariffs. In their complaints, states and businesses argued that the political significance of the 'highly novel tariffs' are 'staggering by any measure,' are 'likely much larger' than those of prior 'executive actions previously found by the Supreme Court to be 'major questions,' ' and represent an 'unheralded' and 'transformative expansion' of presidential authority. The litigants then explained that nowhere in the text of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, under which Trump issued his tariffs, does the statute offer the 'clear congressional authorization' required by the major questions doctrine. So far, at least two courts agree. A unanimous three-judge panel, including a Trump appointee, discussed plaintiffs' major questions doctrine claims in detail and ultimately held that, 'regardless of whether the court views the President's actions through the nondelegation doctrine, through the major questions doctrine, or simply with separation of powers in mind, any interpretation of IEEPA that delegates unlimited tariff authority is unconstitutional.' Similarly, Judge Rudolph Contreras of the D.C. District Court cited a recent SCOTUS major questions doctrine case to explain that 'if Congress had intended to delegate to the President the power of taxing ordinary commerce from any country at any rate for virtually any reason, it would have had to say so.' Tariffs are not the only MAGA priority that might suffer at the hands of doctrines that conservative jurists have pioneered in recent years. For example, an ACLU lawyer and Judge James Boasberg agreed in a hearing that the president's reliance on a 1789 wartime law to summarily deport suspected gang members was far removed from the legislation's historical use, suggesting that principles of the major questions doctrine might apply. These examples help illustrate one reason why progressive litigants, who might philosophically oppose frameworks like the major questions doctrine, should nonetheless invoke them to challenge harmful Trump 2.0 agenda items: They might win. That is not to say that, perhaps especially at SCOTUS, we should always expect doctrinal rigor to supersede the kinds of political considerations that often undergird high-profile decisions. But the federal judiciary does not operate in a fluid, top-down fashion. Once issued, Supreme Court precedents take on a life of their own in the district and circuit courts, which enjoy ample latitude to find the play in their joints. Moreover, and as we have suggested elsewhere, a proliferation of major questions doctrine claims against a Republican president—even if they are ultimately unsuccessful—could have a beneficial side effect. One of the key challenges that the doctrine poses to regulatory governance is its malleability, thanks to the high court's poor articulation of the philosophy's scope and application. Bringing major questions doctrine cases against Trump policies in front of Trump-aligned judges could cause those judges to discipline the unwieldy and sprawling doctrine, a medium-to-good outcome that could prove useful for future attempts at progressive governance. Beyond the effect on any particular lawsuits, invoking these doctrines against Donald Trump's signature policies can also help expand the fault line that has emerged between the anti-administrative conservative legal apparatus and the MAGA 2.0 movement, the policy ambitions of which require precisely the type of bold, transformative executive power that the former was constructed to impede. Driving a further wedge between these onetime allies can only redound to the collective benefit of the administration's opponents.
Vox
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Vox
Why Donald Trump soured on some of his own judges
Late last month, approximately 1 billion news cycles ago, an obscure federal court made President Donald Trump very, very mad. The US Court of International Trade ruled unanimously on May 28 that the massive tariffs Trump imposed after taking office again are illegal. That ruling was suspended the next day by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the tariffs will be allowed to remain in effect pending a ruling (arguments are scheduled for late July). But the appellate court's decision didn't soothe Trump. He took to Truth Social on May 29 to post a 510-word screed attacking the judges on the Court of International Trade, before turning his ire toward a more surprising candidate — Leonard Leo, the most important person in the conservative legal movement. 'I was new to Washington, and it was suggested that I use The Federalist Society as a recommending source on Judges,' Trump wrote, reminiscing about his first term. 'I did so, openly and freely, but then realized that they were under the thumb of a real 'sleazebag' named Leonard Leo, a bad person who, in his own way, probably hates America, and obviously has his own separate ambitions.' This breakup surprised many commentators. But not David French. 'If you're familiar with how the conservative legal movement has interacted with MAGA, you have seen this coming for a while,' French, a New York Times columnist, lawyer, and onetime member of the Federalist Society, told Today, Explained co-host Sean Rameswaram. 'You knew this was coming after 2020. Because in 2020, after Trump had really stocked the federal judiciary with an awful lot of FedSoc judges and justices…none of them, zero of them, helped him try to steal the election.' French spoke with Today, Explained about the origins of the (other) big, beautiful breakup and what it means for the Trump administration and the future of the federal judiciary. Below is an excerpt of the conversation, edited for length and clarity. There's much more in the full podcast, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify. Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Federalist Society? I am not now, but I have been a member of the Federalist Society. I was a member of the Federalist Society either all three years of law school or the first two years of law school. But it was also a very different time. I think the Federalist Society at the law school at that time, when we would have meetings, maybe 10 or 12 people would show up. Things have changed. One of the most conspicuous changes is that FedSoc has become an enemy of the president of the United States. From [2020] forward, you began to see this drifting apart between FedSoc and MAGA. When Trump comes back into office and he doubles down on being Donald Trump, all of this became very, very predictable. Because if the Trump administration's argument dovetailed with their originalist legal philosophy, they would rule for it. But if it was just simply Trump's lawless demands, they were going to reject it. And Trump is baffled by this distinction. He's baffled by it because congressional Republicans haven't drawn this line at all. When Trump's demands conflict with conservative principles, they will yield to Trump's demands every time. And the judges and justices have taken the opposite tack to such an extent that Republican-nominated judges have ruled against Trump about 72 percent of the time, which is remarkably close to about the 80 percent or so of the time that Democratic-appointed judges have ruled against Trump. You mentioned a whole host of issues where FedSoc judges have perhaps not given Trump what he wanted. Does the one that finally tips Trump off to go for it on Truth Social surprise you? It doesn't, because what really set him off was striking down tariffs. To the extent that Trump loves a policy, he loves tariffs. The Court of International Trade struck it down, and it was pointed out to him that one of the judges on the Court of International Trade that struck down the tariffs was appointed by him. He had been ranting about judges in general. Now he got specific with Leonard Leo; he got specific with the FedSoc. People like me who'd been watching this for a very long time were not wondering if this was going to happen. We were just wondering what was going to be the tipping point: Was it going to be a Supreme Court case? Was it going to be an appellate court? It turns out it was the Court of International Trade that brought us to this moment. Leonard Leo did not author a decision from this court. Why is he mad at Leonard Leo? Leonard Leo has long been a key figure in the Federalist Society and was very much a part of the first Trump administration, working closely with the administration to put forward judges. For a long time, Trump looked at his judicial nominations and waved them like a flag to the American conservative public saying, look what I did. But the more the American conservative public started loving Trump as Trump, versus Trump as what policy wins he could deliver, the less he started waving these other ideological flags, and the more it became all about him. And so this meant that this marriage was going to be temporary almost from the beginning, unless FedSoc capitulated. And if you know anything about FedSoc and the people who belong to it, and the people who've come up as judges, I knew they weren't going to capitulate. It's a very different culture from political conservatism. Do you think Donald Trump didn't realize that? I don't think he realized that at all. He's had this entire history politically of when Republicans disagree with him, they either fall in line or they're steamrolled. And so it's so interesting to me that he actually began that Truth Social rant that lacerated Leonard Leo and the FedSoc with this question: What's going on? Why is this happening? And I totally understand his bafflement. Because all of the political people had surrendered, or almost all of them. And so when he turns around and these judges and justices just keep ruling against him, you can understand why he would take that as, 'What's going on here? I don't get this. I don't understand this. I've been assured that these were good judges.' And so that's where you get to that real tension. Do you think this rift with the Federalist Society will affect how he appoints judges going forward? The short answer to that question is yes. The longer answer to that question is heck yes. A lot of people were worried about this because they were thinking, Okay, Trump 1.0: He has General Mattis as his secretary of defense. Trump 2.0: He has Pete Hegseth. You can do this all day long. The Trump 1.0 early nominations — sound, serious, establishment conservatives. Trump 2.0 — often MAGA crazies. The question was, 'Is this same pattern going to establish itself in Trump 2.0 on judges?' And then he appointed to the Third Circuit Emil Bove, this DOJ enforcer of his who was responsible for the effort to dismiss the Eric Adams case. He's nominated him for the Third Circuit, and a lot of people are now saying, 'Oh, now that's your harbinger right there.'
