Latest news with #executiveAuthority
The Independent
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Independent
What order? Trump team ignoring 1 in 3 major judicial rulings against them, analysis finds
Multiple federal court judges have accused the Trump administration of deliberately defying court orders by being slow to respond, misrepresenting facts in filings, and not taking prompt action as President Donald Trump continues an unprecedented campaign to expand his executive authority. In an analysis of 165 court orders filed against the Trump administration, the Washington Post found that it was accused of resisting court orders in at least 57 of those cases – approximately 34 percent. Since taking office, Trump has sought to implement his agenda as swiftly as possible, particularly in cases involving his immigration policies and attempts to drastically reduce the federal workforce. Despite multiple district court judges issuing temporary injunctions to stop the administration from deporting immigrants without due process or sending them to third countries they've never been to, filings indicate the administration has continued its efforts. This has, most notably, occurred in the case involving Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran immigrant who was previously granted permission to remain in the U.S. by a court. The administration inadvertently sent Abrego Garcia to a maximum security prison in El Salvador, under accusations that he was a gang member. Multiple courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, ordered the administration to 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia's return, yet officials made no swift efforts – leading to a judge's admonishment. 'Defendants have failed to respond in good faith, and their refusal to do so can only be viewed as willful and intentional noncompliance,' Judge Paula Xinis, appointed by former president Barack Obama, said after the administration failed to provide updates on how it was returning Abrego Garcia. It was just one of several immigration cases in which judges have raised concerns about the administration not following orders. In April, D.C. Judge James Boasberg, appointed by Obama, admonished the administration for 'willful disobedience of judicial orders' after they did not comply with his order to turn around planes carrying dozens of people to a prison in El Salvador. 'The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders — especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it,' Boasberg wrote. Accusations against the administration have also occurred in cases involving the federal workforce. Also in April, Judge Amy Berman Jackson, appointed by Obama, raised 'significant grounds for concern' that the administration was deliberately disobeying her order to keep more than 1,000 employees with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. 'There is reason to believe that the defendants simply spent the days immediately following the Circuit's relaxation of the Order dressing their RIF in new clothes, and that they are thumbing their nose at both this Court and the Court of Appeals,' Jackson wrote. The Independent has asked the White House for comment. Courts can hold the administration accountable with contempt hearings for noncompliance but they're traditionally slow to bring such action because many of the rulings are being appealed. Hearings in which a party is found noncompliant can result in fines or imprisonment. But the U.S. Marshal Service, a federal law enforcement agency tasked with serving as security for the federal judiciary, can serve subpoenas or warrants as well as make arrests when indicated by a court. But some experts raised concerns that, under Trump's authority, the Marshal Service would not carry-out those orders. Trump and his officials consistently lash out against judges who rule against them, misrepresenting them as Democratic and far-left extremists. A vast majority of the accusations have been brought by Democratic-appointed judges in immigration cases, but a handful of Republican appointees, including two judges tapped by Trump, have also either accused or raised questions about the administration's compliance. Jessica Roth, a former federal prosecutor and professor at Cardozo School of Law, told The Hill in April that it was 'deeply distressing' to see lawyers for the government act this way. 'This is extremely unusual behavior, both from the administration and from the lawyers representing the administration in court, and it's deeply distressing to see the behavior from these Department of Justice lawyers, which is not the norm for how Department of Justice lawyers conduct themselves in court,' Roth told The Hill.
New York Times
29-06-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Appeals Court to Consider Trump's Use of Alien Enemies Act
It is one of President Trump's most contentious assertions of executive authority: a proclamation, issued in March, calling on the powers of an 18th-century law to round up and deport scores of immigrants who he claimed were members of a Venezuelan street gang. That law, the Alien Enemies Act, had been used only three times before in U.S. history, all during periods of war. And the way Mr. Trump invoked it raised significant questions about whether he was complying with the statute's text. For more than three months, courts across the country have been struggling to answer those questions and decide whether the president had stretched the limits of the law in pursuing one of his central policy goals: the mass deportation of immigrants. On Monday, a federal appeals court in New Orleans will consider those questions, as well, in what is likely to be the decisive legal battle over Mr. Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act. The hearing, before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, will almost certainly reprise legal arguments that the Trump administration and lawyers for the Venezuelan men have made repeatedly in lower courts. But the Fifth Circuit's case is likely to be the first to reach the Supreme Court, where it will get a full hearing on the substantive question of whether Mr. Trump has used the act unlawfully. Passed in 1798 as the nascent United States was threatened by war with France, the Alien Enemies Act gives the president expansive powers to detain and expel members of a hostile foreign nation. But the act grants those powers only in times of declared war or during what it describes as an invasion or a 'predatory incursion.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Bloomberg
17-06-2025
- Politics
- Bloomberg
Trump's Grip on LA Troops Faces Test in Appeals Court Ruling
President Donald Trump's continued use of California 's National Guard to respond to protests in Los Angeles faced fresh scrutiny on Tuesday in a high-stakes showdown over the limits of his executive authority. A three-judge panel in the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco heard arguments for lawyers from both the Justice Department and California over whether the president's deployment of the troops without the state's approval was illegal. The court is expected to rule quickly on whether to let Trump keep using the troops for now as the case plays out.
Fox News
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
REP TROY A CARTER SR: Trump's overuse of emergency powers is an abuse of power
In his first 100 days back in office, President Donald Trump has invoked emergency powers more times than any modern president — eight times, according to NPR's Kat Lonsdorf. From declaring a "national energy emergency" despite no fuel shortage, to labeling a longstanding trade deficit as a threat to national security, Trump is using emergency declarations not to address urgent crises — but to ram through his domestic agenda while bypassing Congress. Let's be clear: emergency powers were never meant to serve as policy shortcuts. Elizabeth Goitein of the Brennan Center for Justice rightly notes these powers exist to give presidents temporary flexibility during true emergencies — not to rewrite policy on the fly. Yet Trump has now declared 21 national emergencies across two terms, nearly doubling the rate of his predecessors. Scholars like Princeton's Kim Lane Scheppele have sounded the alarm: this is "pedal to the metal on executive power." As someone who studies the erosion of democracies around the world, Scheppele warns this is the very path authoritarianism often takes — through unchecked executive authority masquerading as urgency. Equally concerning is the White House's open admission that it will push these legal boundaries all the way to the Supreme Court. If successful, the result could permanently upend the constitutional balance of powers and embolden future presidents — of any party — to rule by decree. As a U.S. congressman, a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and an adjunct professor of Political Science at Xavier University of Louisiana, I take seriously my oath to defend the Constitution. I will continue fighting against this gross abuse of power and the flagrant disregard for the rule of law — the same rule of law that has safeguarded this nation from tyranny for nearly 250 years. The framers of our Constitution understood that emergency powers, if left unchecked, could be a fast track to despotism. That's why they designed a system of checks and balances — not a system of one-man rule. We must not abandon that legacy now.
