Latest news with #executiveOrder
Reuters
an hour ago
- Politics
- Reuters
Trump victorious again as US Supreme Court wraps up its term
WASHINGTON, June 28 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on the last day of rulings for its current term gave Donald Trump his latest in a series of victories at the nation's top judicial body, one that may make it easier for him to implement contentious elements of his sweeping agenda as he tests the limits of presidential power. With its six conservative members in the majority and its three liberals dissenting, the court on Friday curbed the ability of judges to impede his policies nationwide, resetting the power balance between the federal judiciary and presidents. The ruling came after the Republican president's administration asked the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of so-called "universal" injunctions issued by three federal judges that halted nationally the enforcement of his January executive order limiting birthright citizenship. The court's decision has "systematically weakened judicial oversight and strengthened executive discretion," said Paul Rosenzweig, an attorney who served in Republican President George W. Bush's administration. Friday's ruling said that judges generally can grant relief only to the individuals or groups who brought a particular lawsuit. The decision did not, however, permit immediate implementation of Trump's directive, instead instructing lower courts to reconsider the scope of the injunctions. The ruling was authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one of three conservative justices who Trump appointed during his first term in office from 2017-2021. Trump has scored a series of victories at the Supreme Court since returning to office in January. These have included clearing the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face and ending temporary legal status held by hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian grounds. The court also permitted implementation of Trump's ban on transgender people in the military, let his administration withhold payment to foreign aid groups for work already performed for the government, allowed his firing of two Democratic members of federal labor boards to stand for now, and backed his Department of Government Efficiency in two disputes. "President Trump secured the relief he sought in most of his administration's cases," George Mason University law school professor Robert Luther III said. "Justice Barrett's opinion is a win for the presidency," Luther said of the decision on nationwide injunctions. "It recognizes that the executive branch is a bully pulpit with a wide range of authorities to implement the promises of a campaign platform." Once again, as with many of the term's major decisions, the three liberal justices found themselves in dissent, a familiar position as the court under the guidance of Chief Justice John Roberts continues to shift American law rightward. The rulings in favor of Trump illustrate that "the court's three most liberal justices are proving less relevant now than at any earlier point in the Roberts Court with respect to their impact on its jurisprudence," Luther said. The cases involving Trump administration policies this year came to the court as emergency filings rather than through the normal process, with oral arguments held only in the birthright litigation. And those arguments did not focus on the legality of Trump's action but rather on the actions of the judges who found that it was likely unconstitutional. "One theme is the court's struggle to keep pace with a faster-moving legal world, especially as the Trump administration tests the outer boundaries of its powers," Boston College Law School professor Daniel Lyons said. In other cases during the nine-month term, the court sided with a Republican-backed ban in Tennessee on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, endorsed South Carolina's plan to cut off public funding to reproductive healthcare and abortion provider Planned Parenthood, and made it easier to pursue claims alleging workplace "reverse" discrimination. The court also spared two American gun companies from the Mexican government's lawsuit accusing them of aiding illegal firearms trafficking to drug cartels, and allowed parents to opt elementary school children out of classes when storybooks with LGBT characters are read. In several cases involving federal statutes, the message from the justices is that people unhappy with the outcome need to take that up with Congress, according to Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson. "The court is implicitly saying, 'That's Congress' problem to fix, and it's not the court's role to solve those issues,'" Levinson said. This is the second straight year that the court ended its term with a decision handing Trump a major victory. On July 1, 2024, it ruled in favor of Trump in deciding that presidents cannot be prosecuted for official actions taken in office. It marked the first time that the court recognized any form of presidential immunity from prosecution. The Supreme Court's next term begins in October but Trump's administration still has some emergency requests pending that the justices could act upon at any time. It has asked the court to halt a judicial order blocking mass federal job cuts and the restructuring of agencies. It also has asked the justices to rein in the judge handling a case involving deportations to so-called "third countries." Recent rulings "have really shown the court for what it is, which is a deeply conservative court," Georgia State University law professor Anthony Michael Kreis said. The court's jurisprudence reflects a larger shift in the national discourse, with Republicans feeling they have the political capital to achieve long-sought aims, Kreis said. The court's conservative majority, Kreis said, "is probably feeling more emboldened to act."
Bloomberg
6 hours ago
- Business
- Bloomberg
Fourth Trump Executive Order Against Law Firm Nullified by Judge
A DC federal judge has struck down President Donald Trump's executive order targeting Houston-founded law firm Susman Godfrey, marking the fourth takedown of an executive order targeting a law firm. US District Court Judge Loren AliKhan said Friday the order targeting Susman violates the U.S. Constitution and must be permanently enjoined.
Washington Post
6 hours ago
- Business
- Washington Post
Judge rejects another Trump executive order targeting the legal community
WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Friday struck down another of President Donald Trump's executive orders targeting law firms. U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan ruled that the order against the firm of Susman Godfrey was unconstitutional and must be permanently blocked. The order was the latest ruling to reject Trump's efforts to punish law firms for legal work he does not like and for employing attorneys he perceives as his adversaries.
Washington Post
7 hours ago
- Business
- Washington Post
Judge permanently blocks Trump order against law firm Susman Godfrey
A federal judge on Friday rejected President Donald Trump's executive order targeting the law firm Susman Godfrey, the fourth time a judge has dismissed his attempts to punish a prominent firm for taking on cases he dislikes or hiring his perceived foes. Trump has issued several executive orders sanctioning law firms with penalties that include losing government contracts and security clearances. Four of those firms sued to fight his actions and they have racked up an undefeated record in court, with judges issuing rulings in each case blocking and excoriating Trump's orders.
Al Arabiya
7 hours ago
- Business
- Al Arabiya
Judge Rejects Another Trump Executive Order Targeting the Legal Community
A federal judge on Friday struck down another of President Donald Trump's executive orders targeting law firms. US District Judge Loren AliKhan ruled that the order against the firm of Susman Godfrey was unconstitutional and must be permanently blocked. The order was the latest ruling to reject Trump's efforts to punish law firms for legal work he does not like and for employing attorneys he perceives as his adversaries. The Susman Godfrey firm suggested that it had drawn Trump's ire at least in part because it represented Dominion Voting Systems in the voting machine company's defamation lawsuit against Fox News over false claims surrounding the 2020 presidential election. The suit ended in a massive settlement. Other judges in recent weeks have blocked similar orders against the firms of Jenner & Block, Perkins Coie, and WilmerHale. The orders have sought to impose similar sanctions, including the suspension of security clearances of attorneys and the restriction of access to federal buildings. The order was one in a series attacking firms that had taken positions with which President Trump disagreed. '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,' AliKhan wrote. 'Today, this court follows suit, concluding that the order targeting Susman violates the US Constitution and must be permanently enjoined.' Other major firms have sought to avert orders by preemptively reaching settlements that require them, among other things, to collectively dedicate hundreds of millions of dollars in free legal services in support of causes the Trump administration says it supports.
