Dem
47
GOP
53
Again, we try to keep up with the huge volume of (usually adverse) court decisions involving the Trump administration.
Life Takes Visas: U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin has struck down Donald Trump's $100,000 fee for H1-B visa applicants. The judge labeled it a tax that violated the separation of powers and intruded on Congressional authority to levy taxes. The Supreme Court's recent decision blocking Trump's tariffs was part of the basis for the judge's ruling.
Our Take: A similar suit by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce failed in D.C., so it will be interesting to see how the courts of appeal handle this. But given how disruptive to business, particularly tech companies, this policy has been, this could also be an excuse for Trump to back down. He's already quietly reversed his proposal to require all green card applicants to wait out the process in their home countries, no matter how long they've lived in the U.S. Stephen Miller wants anyone with skin darker than his (which is pretty much everyone, other than his fellow vampires) to be deported, but big business also has Trump's ear and when his policies hurt their bottom line, he'll sometimes listen and change course.
Trans Fix: U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy in Rhode Island has referred Justice Department lawyers for possible discipline after blocking their attempts to serve subpoenas on local hospitals seeking minors' medical records who received transgender care. The judge, who was appointed by Trump in 2019, did not mince words in her order. She said the subpoena was issued "for an improper purpose and in bad faith." She also said the DoJ lawyers lied under oath and withheld information. She accused the lawyers of abusing their power and the public's trust and that the "DOJ has proven unworthy of this trust at every point in this case."
Our Take: Where have we heard this before? The Trump DoJ lawyers just can't seem to do anything in an honest and ethical manner, to the point that seemingly every federal court that has been assigned one of their cases has had to issue one of these scolding decisions. It's good to see at least one judge refer them to disciplinary proceedings, but since the DoJ has dismantled the internal watchdogs or else replaced them with lackeys, it's unlikely to go anywhere, at least until there's a new sheriff in town.
Oathbound: And speaking of the loss of the trust in the DoJ, Judge Amit Mehta, the judge overseeing Stewart Rhodes' and the Oathkeepers' criminal cases, won't rubber stamp the Department's request to vacate their convictions. He has asked for more information from the DoJ. The judge said that the government offered only a conclusory statement, which is insufficient for him to determine if the dismissal is in the public interest and is not an abuse of prosecutorial discretion. The judge gave them a deadline of June 5, but the government has asked for more time to come up with some reasons for their request.
Our Take: One would think that they would know why they're asking the court to vacate convictions before they file the request, but in this DoJ, it's do the president's bidding first and ask questions later. This will not endear them to Mehta or help convince him that the request is in the public's best interest. It will be interesting to see what they come up with. "Trump told me to" is probably not going to cut it.
Boutros, Golly!: The U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, Andrew Boutros, continues to plumb new depths of incompetence. He revealed in a court filing that he, himself, had a talking to with the grand jury and tried to
intimidate them"remind the grand jurors of their obligations under the law and the role they play in our constitutional form of government." This was after several members of the grand jury expressed some, shall we say, skepticism about the charges. According to the just-released transcripts, one grand juror asked if prosecutors had "unlimited tries" and said, "I heard this case like last week and I thought it was a crock of (expletive) then and I still think it is." Sheri Mecklenburg, the Assistant U.S. Attorney, improperly excused this grand juror and secured indictments on the third try.Our Take: Yikes—these guys continue to find new ways to put themselves and their law licenses at risk. What are they possibly getting out of this that can make it worth it to sacrifice their reputations and their careers? The motivation escapes us. At the very least, the judge will hit these prosecutors with sanctions, including having to pay the defendants' legal fees. But she could go further and entertain a motion for vindictive and selective prosecution, which, if successful, could result in greater sanctions, including contempt of court or referral for disciplinary proceedings. But more importantly, as we've said before, putting politics first jeopardizes the entire system and puts legitimate criminal cases at risk (assuming they still prosecute those).
Oh, SNAP!: Last year, the Trump administration imposed draconian new requirements and red tape before states could access SNAP funding. As a result, millions of people have been cut off from the benefits. Twenty states sued, saying that the conditions, some of which related to "fair athletic opportunities," were unlawful and unconstitutional. On Friday, U.S. District Judge Myong Joun in Boston issued a preliminary injunction blocking the new conditions.
Our Take: The big ugly tax break bill imposed new requirements as an offset to the billionaire tax cuts. Pushing people off SNAP or making it harder to receive benefits was one of the goals of this red tape. This court order is certainly good news for people who rely on these programs. But even though these conditions are on hold for now, it will be difficult to re-sign people who were kicked off and a lot of people will slip through the cracks. The consequences of Trump's tax cuts for rich folks are starting to be felt, which will only add to his unpopularity and incentivize voters to hand the keys to Congress to Democrats in November.
That's 0-for-5, by our count. So much winning! (L)