Latest news with #constitutional
New York Times
13 hours ago
- Politics
- New York Times
Judge Strikes Down Trump Order Targeting Another Top Law Firm
A federal judge in Washington ruled on Friday that an executive order President Trump signed imposing penalties against the law firm Susman Godfrey was unconstitutional, permanently barring the government from enforcing its terms. The decision by Judge Loren L. AliKhan of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia effectively ended, at least for now, the president's campaign to subjugate several of the nation's top law firms. It also completed a perfect record among those firms that risked fighting the administration in court, notching four decisive rulings from four separate judges, none of which the Trump administration has, so far, tried to appeal. Like three of her colleagues in Washington, Judge AliKhan found that the Trump administration had tried to crush a law firm that had represented groups opposing Mr. Trump. 'The order was one in a series attacking firms that had taken positions with which President Trump disagreed,' she wrote. 'In the ensuing months, every court to have considered a challenge to one of these orders has found grave constitutional violations and permanently enjoined enforcement of the order in full.' Two of the judges who ruled against the Trump administration were nominated by George W. Bush, and the other two by Barack Obama and Joseph R. Biden Jr. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Associated Press
4 days ago
- Business
- Associated Press
DEA's Last MARIJUANA Gamble: Unconstitutional ALJ System Collapses as MMJ BioPharma Fights Back
The Stakes Couldn't Be Higher This is more than a marijuana case. It's a constitutional case. It's a test of whether the DEA is still accountable to the courts, to the people, and to the law. 'If the DEA believes it can ignore the Supreme Court, then no American is safe from administrative tyranny,' Duane Boise warned. " MMJ will fight. And we will win.' WASHINGTON, D.C. / ACCESS Newswire / June 24, 2025 / The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has doubled down on an administrative law judge (ALJ) system the Supreme Court has already deemed unconstitutional and which the Department of Justice (DOJ) itself now refuses to defend. At the center of this constitutional implosion is MMJ BioPharma Cultivation, a federally compliant pharmaceutical cannabis company fighting a multi front legal war against regulatory sabotage. Despite having earned FDA orphan drug designation and submitting multiple Investigational New Drug (IND) applications, MMJ has spent over 2,380 days awaiting DEA registration to Cultivate Schedule I pharmaceutical grade marijuana for use in clinical trials targeting Multiple Sclerosis and Huntington's Disease. Instead of progress, MMJ faces a DEA rogue tribunal and a broken justice mechanism that the Supreme Court and now the DOJ have all declared illegitimate. A System Already Declared Unconstitutional In Axon Enterprise v. FTC (598 U.S. 175, 2023), the U.S. Supreme Court held that parties could bypass agency run tribunals and challenge their constitutionality in federal court. In SEC v. Jarkesy (2024), the Court went further, ruling that agency run Administrative Law Judge proceedings violate the Seventh Amendment's jury trial right, the nondelegation doctrine, and Article II's executive removal structure. The legal writing is on the wall: these kangaroo courts must go. The Department of Justice agrees. DOJ Abandons Defense of DEA's ALJ System In a historic filing on February 27, 2025, the DOJ notified the U.S. District Court in Rhode Island that it would no longer defend the DEA's ALJ system in MMJ BioPharma v. Bondi ([ECF 22](Case 1:24-cv-00127-WES-PAS)). Acting Solicitor General Sara Miron Bloom admitted the ALJ structure violates Article II's separation of powers. Citing Axon and Jarkesy, DOJ conceded that 5 U.S.C. § 7521 is unconstitutional and that DEA's internal judicial regime is legally indefensible. Yet the DEA marches on in open defiance of the very government it is supposed to serve. Mulrooney's Lawless Ruling On June 16, 2025, DEA Chief ALJ John J. Mulrooney II-still clinging to a discredited position-issued a recommended denial of MMJ's bulk manufacturing application. No evidentiary hearing. No cross-examination. No valid record. And no authority. 'This is bureaucratic mutiny,' said MMJ's CEO Duane Boise. 'The DOJ admits the system is illegal, yet the DEA keeps using it to punish medical marijuana research.' MMJ Fights Back on Two Fronts 'They're saying, 'Prove you drowned after we pushed you in the ocean,'' said MMJ CEO Duane Boise. The Gaslighting and Hypocrisy Run Deep 'The DEA is a constitutional dead man walking,' Boise declared. 'Every day it uses this system, it digs its own grave deeper.' The Endgame: DEA's Administrative Empire Is Crumbling Three outcomes are now in motion: Justice Delayed Will No Longer Be Justice Denied What began as a regulatory delay has become a constitutional crisis. The DEA has been caught running a rogue system, misusing authority, and subverting scientific advancement. Now, the walls are closing in on Deputy Administrator Thomas Prevoznik, Matthew Strait, and Aarathi Haig. MMJ is represented by attorney Megan Sheehan. CONTACT: Madison Hisey [email protected] 203-231-8583 SOURCE: MMJ International Holdings press release
Bloomberg
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Bloomberg
Trump Using Military to Further Agenda, Says Constitutional Lawyer
Elizabeth Wydra, President of the Constitutional Accountability Center, says that constitutional guardrails are important to ensure US residents don't live under military authority, as President Trump dispatches more troops -including Marines and the National Guard- to counter anti-deportation protests. (Source: Bloomberg)
Wall Street Journal
05-06-2025
- Business
- Wall Street Journal
Lawmakers Need to Get Back Into the Game on Trade
In an unambiguous and unanimous ruling, the U.S. Court of International Trade held that President Trump's 'reciprocal tariffs' and fentanyl tariff actions exceeded his constitutional and statutory authority. We believe the ruling will stand up under Supreme Court review. While chronic trade imbalances remain, the administration now must deploy other trade strategies and authorities to address global overreliance on the U.S. to support the longstanding economic order. Congress can help by reclaiming its Constitutional authority to direct trade. The trade court's ruling states that the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, or IEEPA, can't authorize sweeping tariffs without violating what is known as the nondelegation doctrine. A three-judge panel ruled that IEEPA doesn't grant unlimited, unreviewable authority for the president to declare national emergencies unilaterally or impose tariffs arbitrarily. The ruling cited foundational Supreme Court cases such as Youngstown Sheet&Tube v. Sawyer, as well as more recent decisions such as Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, on improper delegation of authority from Congress to the executive branch. The court also invoked the 'major questions doctrine' of the Roberts court as part of the argument against Mr. Trump's claim of broad trade authority. In its argument before the trade court, the administration heavily relied on U.S. v. Yoshida International, a 1974 Supreme Court decision that upheld President Nixon's brief imposition of a 10% across-the-board tariff aimed at addressing a trade deficit spike. But that reliance ultimately undermines the administration's case for three key reasons. First, Yoshida involved presidential authority under the Trading with the Enemy Act, a statute that was later expressly amended to curtail executive power. Second, the Yoshida opinion emphasized the narrow and temporary scope of Nixon's tariffs, which stands in contrast to Mr. Trump's broader measures. Finally, following Nixon's actions, Congress enacted Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, granting the president more narrowly defined authority to respond to trade imbalances.
National Post
01-06-2025
- General
- National Post
Raymond J. de Souza: King Charles' throne speech was a constitutional triumph
The speech from the throne was a spectacular constitutional triumph, which approaches the oxymoronic, in that constitutional matters in the Westminster tradition are designed not to be spectacular. The sovereign imposes upon himself the custom of reading the speech impassively, the flat tone indicating neither approval nor disapproval of the government's program. There is the prohibition, indicated in the instructions to all present in the chamber, to 'refrain from expressions of support or dissent.' Article content Article content Article content King Charles III began by noting that 'every time I come to Canada … a little more of Canada seeps into my bloodstream — and from there straight to my heart.' The desire to applaud was palpable in all present. But restraint was the order of the day, and order is part of our non-revolutionary constitutional history, along with peace and good government. Article content Article content Standing ovations, which plague question period with Americanesque barking and barracking, cheapen the coin of the realm. To be applauded in the Commons matters not at all. It is the norm of restraint which renders exceptional moments momentous. Article content Thus when restraint could restrain no longer, and sustained applause broke out, that singularity signalled that a great wave of patriotic passion had surged through all present — and across the vast dominion. It was a moment of high historic import, and of deep emotion. The King, properly, was unmoved, but permitted himself a pleased pause. Even the Queen joined in the applause. Not a few had tears in their eyes as they heard the King of Canada declare: 'The True North is indeed strong and free!' Article content Article content It was a moment both sober and stunning at the same time. Should King Charles III reign many years, it will remain the supreme discharge of his Canadian constitutional duty, that in a moment of distress, he came and, without melodrama, but dramatically enough, said simply that. Article content Article content That is constitutional spectacle. It has many parts. Article content The Senate's Usher of the Black Rod — in whose name invitations to the speech from the throne were issued — is not part of the constitution, but he is. Without his charge from the King to summon the Commons, and without him driving up Wellington Street to do so, Parliament does not begin. It took some time to attend to all that, and thus the King and Queen did an unusual walkabout in the Senate chamber to pass the time; Westminster conventions are meant to be adaptable things.
