Retired Justice David Souter, who over almost two decades on the Supreme Court frustrated Republicans by migrating to the court’s liberal wing, died Thursday, the court announced. He was 85.

The court’s announcement did not list a cause of death but said Souter “died peacefully” at home in New Hampshire, where he has lived since stepping down from the court in 2009.

“Justice David Souter served our Court with great distinction for nearly twenty years,” Chief Justice John Roberts said in a statement.

“He brought uncommon wisdom and kindness to a lifetime of public service,” Roberts continued. “After retiring to his beloved New Hampshire in 2009, he continued to render significant service to our branch by sitting regularly on the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for more than a decade. He will be greatly missed.”

Appointed in 1990 by former President George H.W. Bush, Souter soon began migrating to the court’s liberal wing, inspiring Republican backlash that centered on the rallying cry, “No More Souters.”

Within two years, Souter was part a coalition that upheld the essential holding of Roe v. Wade, which established a constitutional right to abortion, and Souter also sided with he court’s liberals on major issues such as affirmative action and religion.

He also was one of the four dissenters in Bush v. Gore, the case that enabled former President George W. Bush to take office in the hotly contested 2000 presidential election.

Souter considered resigning after the decision, believing his five colleagues in the majority acted in a “crudely partisan” fashion, legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin revealed years later in his book, “The Nine, Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court.”

But Souter would remain on the court until 2009, when he retired after more than 19 years on the court. He was 69 at the time, with his unusually young age making his retirement a surprise.

The justice returned to his roots in New England, where he grew up and began his legal career.

A Rhodes Scholar and graduate of Harvard Law School, Souter entered public service after a short stint in private practice. He began working as a prosecutor in New Hampshire’s attorney general's office, rising the ranks until he became state attorney general in 1976.

Two years later, he was named to a state court before eventually being appointed to the New Hampshire Supreme Court and later the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where Souter served until his nomination to the nation’s highest court.

Following his retirement, he continued to hear cases at 1st Circuit by sitting by designation.

Souter had a reputation for keeping a low profile. He was never married and made few public appearances following his retirement, though in 2012 he did offer a stark warning of what he called “pervasive civic ignorance.”

“I don’t believe there is any problem of American politics in American public life which is more significant today than the pervasive civic ignorance of the Constitution of the United States and the structure of government,” Souter said.

Updated at 10 a.m. EDT

Медиа: image / jpeg

The Washington state Supreme Court upheld the state's ban on high-capacity magazine guns in a Thursday ruling, overturning a lower court order that labeled it unconstitutional.

The 7-2 decision affirmed the constitutionality of a 3-year-old state law that prevents the sale, manufacture and import of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds

“This regulation does not limit the number of bullets or magazines that may be purchased or possessed. By restricting only magazines of a capacity greater than 10, the statute effectively regulates the maximum capacity of magazines, leaving the weapon fully functional for its intended purpose,” Justice Charles Johnson wrote in the majority’s opinion about the ban.

“Thus, we are not convinced that the restriction here renders the right to bear arms in self defense meaningless," he continued.

Gator’s Custom Guns Inc., a Washington for-profit corporation, and Walter Wentz initiated the lawsuit against the state law, arguing the ban violated citizens’ Second Amendment rights.

Justices Sheryl Gordon McCloud and G. Helen Whitener dissented Thursday in defense of the plaintiffs’ dispute, alleging a magazine is not an optional accessory for a repeating firearm.

“It is a defining characteristic of a repeating firearm. As Gator’s Custom Guns explains, ‘Without a magazine inserted, a semiautomatic weapon will not function properly’ and is ‘essentially a single shot breech loader’ like an old-fashioned musket,” McCloud wrote in the dissent.

“And because the magazine functions as an ammunition feeding device, it is not just a passive receptacle for storing ammunition like a cartridge box.”

McCloud, in the dissent, added that the Second Amendment does not just protect “arms” but also “arms-bearing conduct.”

Washington Attorney General Nick Brown lauded the court's decision Thursday, citing the threat of violent events.

“Today’s decision is right on the law and will save lives,” Brown said in a prepared statement according to The Seattle Times. “Large capacity magazines are used in the overwhelming majority of mass shootings, and reducing the toll of these senseless killings is vitally important.”

Thirteen other states outlaw high-capacity magazines.

Медиа: image / jpeg

North Carolina Appeals Court Judge Jefferson Griffin (R) has conceded defeat in a contested race for a seat on the state Supreme Court, bringing an end to a saga that has lasted six months.

Griffin’s concession to incumbent state Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs (D) came after a ruling from a federal judge for the North Carolina State Board of Elections to certify Riggs as the winner. He said he doesn’t fully agree with the ruling but will not appeal it.

“As a judge, I also often have respectful disagreements with my judicial peers,” he said. “While I do not fully agree with the District Court’s analysis, I respect the court’s holding — just as I have respected every judicial tribunal that has heard this case.”

The final outcome of the race, which was the last remaining unsettled election of the 2024 cycle, seemed uncertain for months as Griffin challenged the validity of about 65,000 ballots cast in the race over various issues.

He had argued that 60,000 of the contested ballots should be considered invalid because those voters didn’t include information like a driver’s license or Social Security number on their registration forms. He challenged 5,500 additional ballots from military and overseas voters, arguing they should have been required to present a photo ID upon voting but weren’t.

Those challenges had the potential to be highly consequential in the race because Riggs had finished 734 votes ahead of Griffin. Multiple recounts confirmed Riggs’s lead, but the state elections board had been barred by court order from certifying her as the victor.

Riggs’s campaign and Democrats argued that Griffin was trying to steal the election, while Griffin and other Republicans maintained they were fighting for election integrity and ensuring only valid votes were counted.

The results seemed like they could have changed following a ruling from the state Supreme Court — with Riggs recused — last month in which the court said the 60,000 contested votes with incomplete registration information must be counted, but the 5,500 from military and overseas voters could be thrown out if their identities weren’t verified.

But Chief U.S. District Judge Richard E. Myers, who was appointed by President Trump, ruled Monday that the state elections board must certify Riggs as the winner. Myers found that tossing the military and overseas ballots retroactively would violate the voters’ “substantive due process rights.”

The ruling gave Griffin seven days to appeal before the ruling took effect, but Griffin decided against it.

“As a judge, I believe everybody, myself included, has a right to their day in court,” he said. “This effort has always been about upholding the rule of law and making sure that every legal vote in an election is counted.”

“I wish my opponent the best and will continue to pray for her and all the members of our court system here in North Carolina,” he added.

Riggs said in a statement that she was glad that Griffin conceded and the will of the voters was followed.

“It’s been my honor to lead this fight - even though it should never have happened - and I’m in awe of the North Carolinians whose courage reminds us all that we can use our voices to hold accountable any politician who seeks to take power out of the hands of the people,” she said.

Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin called the development a “righteous victory for democracy and a clear defeat of political gamesmanship.”

“For 200 days, Republicans in North Carolina sought to overturn the will of the people, hijack a state Supreme Court seat, and systematically undermine basic faith in our elections,” he said in a statement. “Jefferson Griffin’s relentless assault on reality has come to an end and Justice Allison Riggs will finally take her rightful place on the North Carolina Supreme Court.”

Riggs’s victory will maintain the 5-2 Republican majority on the court. Democrats hope that her win will give them an opportunity to win back a majority in the court in future elections taking place in a few years.

If Riggs had lost, Republicans would have increased their majority to 6-1.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Attorney Abbe Lowell is striking out to launch a law firm dedicated to representing “those facing politicized investigations” and other legal actions from the Trump administration.

Lowell, a longtime white collar defense attorney, has represented figures on both sides of the aisle, including Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump and Hunter Biden.

The venture comes after Lowell left Winston & Strawn amid reports he would represent New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) after she was referred for criminal investigation based on alleged mortgage fraud.

“This firm is prepared for today’s dynamic legal landscape, offering a leaner model than larger firms can provide,” Lowell said in a statement. “I started my private practice career in my own firm and am excited to once again lead a small yet nimble team ready to represent companies, non-profits and individuals in need of our experience and dedication.”

The firm doesn’t list James or any others among its new clients but said it has already secured clients who are targets of the Trump administration.

“Among the firm’s clients are individuals, including current and former state and federal officials who have been unlawfully and inappropriately targeted by this Administration. The firm also represents entities and organizations involved in litigation over the improper revocation of grant funding by the Department of Government Efficiency and the federal government,” the firm said in a statement.

In starting his own firm, Lowell has turned to a number of attorneys who have left major firms amid complaints about how they’ve responded to a series of actions from the Trump administration targeting big law firms.

Rachel Cohen will join the firm after offering her conditional resignation to her prior firm Skadden Arps, sending a firmwide email calling for leadership to come up with “a satisfactory response to our current moment.”

“Law firms need to be united in condemning these actions and pointing out just how beyond the pale they are. And I think that they’re scared to do that for a variety of reasons. The first is that big law has a deep collective action problem,” Cohen told The Hill in March.

“It does just all come around to, is this industry going to be silent when the president operates outside the balance of the law, or is it not?” she added.

Skadden Arps was among the 20 firms targeted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) asking for details on its diversity hiring practices. It later signed a deal with the Trump administration agreeing to do $100 million in pro bono work — a similar deal to those signed by other firms looking to dodge executive orders from Trump barring their attorneys from government buildings.

Also joining the firm is former Skadden Arps attorney Brenna Trout Frey, who left the firm after criticizing it for striking the deal.

“Today the executive partner of my former firm sent us all an ‘update’ that attempted to convince some of the best minds in the legal profession that he did us a solid by capitulating to the Trump administration's demands for fealty and protection money,” she wrote in a LinkedIn post last month.

“There is only one acceptable response from attorneys to the Trump administration's demands: The rule of law matters. The rule of law matters. As an attorney, if my employer cannot stand up for the rule of law, then I cannot ethically continue to work for them.”

Also joining the firm are other former Winston & Strawn attorneys, including David Kolansky and Isabella Oishi, who both worked on Biden’s cases, as well as Angela Reilly, who comes to the firm from As You Sow.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Luigi Mangione pleaded not guily to a federal judge on Friday, denying his involvement in the Manhattan killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.

Mangione, a 26 year old Ivy League graduate from Maryland, could be charged with capital punishment if convicted of the violent crime.

Attorney General Pam Bondi encouraged the acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Matthew Podolsky to seek the death penalty for Mangione, which marks the end of a 17 year pause on federal executions.

Bondi has said officials will consider Thompson’s killing as “ an act of political violence.”

Some believe the healthcare CEO, who was killed in December, was targeted over a disdain for the insurance claims process.

Gun shell casings left at the scene had the words, “delay,” “depose” and “deny" etched on to the bullets. The adage is typically used to describe the method insurers use to refute claims. Mangione was found with a ghost gun at the time of his arrest.

Thompson was shot while leaving a hotel in Midtown New York for a conference. The Iowa native was a father of two.

People close to Mangione described him as a loner. One friend said he previously expressed “ frustrations” with the U.S. healthcare system.

UnitedHealthcare is the largest insurance provider in the country.

The case captured global attention after a five-day police chase, which ended in Mangione's arrest in Pennsylvania.

The high-profile case is being litigated by former prosecutor Karen Friedman Agnifilo, who has asked the judge not to seek the death penalty for her client. She claims Bondi’s public comments pushing the punishment violate Mangione’s right to a fair trial.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) says the Trump administration’s arrest of a Wisconsin county judge for allegedly helping an immigrant avoid law enforcement is a “gravely serious and drastic move” that threatens to “breach” the separation of powers between the branches of government.

Baldwin issued her statement Friday in response to the FBI’s arrest of Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan on charges that she obstructed immigration agents attempting to detain an immigrant who lacked legal status and appeared in her courtroom earlier this month.

The judge allegedly steered Mexican national Eduardo Flores Ruiz out of her courtroom while Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents waited in a hallway to take him into custody.

“Make no mistake, we do not have kings in this country and we are a democracy governed by laws that everyone must abide by,” Baldwin said. “By relentlessly attacking the judicial system, flouting court orders and arresting a sitting judge, this president is putting those basic democratic values that Wisconsinites hold dear on the line.

“While details of this exact case remain minimal, this action fits into the deeply concerning pattern of this president’s lawless behavior and undermining courts and Congress’s checks on his power,” she said.

FBI Director Kash Patel posted on the social platform X that Dugan had “intentionally misdirected federal agents away from the subject to be arrested in her courthouse, Eduardo Flores Ruiz, allowing the subject — an illegal alien — to evade arrest.”

Dugan appeared before U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephen Dries on Friday and is charged with two felonies for helping Flores Ruiz.

Медиа: image / jpeg

New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) filed a Wednesday lawsuit against the Trump administration with 11 other states alleging the president violated the law by imposing tariffs on global trading partners.

“The president does not have the power to raise taxes on a whim, but that’s exactly what President Trump has been doing with these tariffs,” James said in a statement.

“Donald Trump promised that he would lower prices and ease the cost of living, but these illegal tariffs will have the exact opposite effect on American families. His tariffs are unlawful and if not stopped, they will lead to more inflation, unemployment, and economic damage.”

Trump said the White House has the authority to implement tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act which permits the executive branch to investigate, block, prohibit or regulate any imports and exports with foreign countries in the case of an “unusual or extraordinary threat.”

The White House has cited the fentanyl opioid crisis as a qualifying “national emergency.”

However, the Wednesday lawsuit alleges the president would need the approval of Congress to increase taxes on imports and exports, referencing a claim originally flagged by The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board.

Connecticut, Arizona, Oregon, Vermont, Colorado, Maine, Illinois, Delaware, Minnesota, Nevada and New Mexico have all joined the lawsuit alleging the uptick in levies is illegal.

In court filings, James and other states said tariffs would cause a recession, pointing to statistics from a report by the New York City comptroller that new trade policies could lead to more than 35,000 lost jobs in the city, while state agencies could end up paying more than $100 million in extra costs due to tariffs increasing prices.

“President Trump’s reckless tariffs have skyrocketed costs for consumers and unleashed economic chaos across the country. New York is standing up to fight back against the largest federal tax hike in American history,” said New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D).

“Attorney General James and I are partnering on this litigation on behalf of New York consumers, because we can't let President Trump push our country into a recession.”

While the White House did not immediately respond to The Hill’s request for comment on tariffs, Trump and James have previously exchanged public criticisms.

“Letitia James, a totally corrupt politician, should resign from her position as New York State Attorney General, IMMEDIATELY. Everyone is trying to MAKE NEW YORK GREAT AGAIN, and it can never be done with this wacky crook in office,” the president wrote in a Truth Social post earlier this month.

In the days following Trump’s social media post, the Federal Housing Finance Agency made a criminal referral to the Justice Department against James, arguing she said a Virginia home was her primary residence to secure more favorable loan terms.

The measure came months after the New York attorney general launched a series of lawsuits against the Trump administration seeking to block executive orders that target birthright citizenship and other statutes.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Three additional federal prosecutors have resigned from the U.S. attorney’s office in the Southern District of New York in the aftermath of the Department of Justice (DOJ) dropping its case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams (D).

Celia Cohen, Andrew Rohrbach and Derek Wikstrom sent a letter to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche on Tuesday accusing the DOJ of requiring them to “express regret and admit some wrongdoing” in refusing to move to drop the case in exchange for being restored from administrative leave, multiple outlets reported.

“We will not confess wrongdoing when there was none,” they said.

The three prosecutors wrote they have served under presidents of both parties and have advanced their priorities while pursuing justice. They said prosecutors don’t set policy but must follow the Constitution and the country’s laws, benefiting the public in giving it faith in the justice system, the department in having credibility and the prosecutors in being able to “ethically carry out their duties.”

“Now, the Department has decided that obedience supersedes all else, requiring us to abdicate our legal and ethical obligations in favor of directions from Washington,” they said. “That is wrong.”

The resignations are just the latest after a series of others who stepped down from the office in February over the move to drop the corruption case against Adams. The embattled mayor faced charges of bribery and wire fraud stemming from allegations that he accepted bribes from businessmen and a Turkish government official before and during his time as mayor.

Adams denied the allegations and alleged that he was targeted for political reasons because of disagreements with the Biden administration. After acting U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon and others resigned from the office over their refusal to make a motion to drop the case, the DOJ eventually found a prosecutor who made the motion.

The motion notably did not argue the merits of the case but argued that it had interfered with Adams’s ability to address the administration’s priorities on immigration and crime. Sassoon alleged a “quid pro quo” occurred between the Trump administration and Adams.

A federal judge allowed the case to be dropped earlier this month after expressing significant skepticism about the motion.

Cohen, Rohrbach and Wikstrom were placed on leave over their refusal to drop the case.

“There is no greater privilege than to work for an institution whose mandate is to do the right thing, the right way, for the right reasons,” the prosecutors said. “We will not abandon this principle to keep our jobs. We resign.”

A spokesperson for the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York declined to comment. The Hill has reached out to the DOJ for comment.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The Supreme Court appeared inclined Tuesday to side with a group of parents objecting to their school district including books with LGBTQ themes in its elementary school curriculum.

Across more than two hours of arguments, a majority of the justices sympathized with the Montgomery County, Md., parents’ claims that the lack of an opt-out option substantially burdens their First Amendment rights to freely exercise their religion.

“What is the big deal about allowing them to opt out of this?” conservative Justice Samuel Alito asked.

Montgomery County, which serves more than 160,000 students in the Maryland suburbs of the nation’s capital and is one of the country’s most diverse school districts, began introducing LGBTQ-inclusive books in its elementary school language arts curriculum at the start of the 2022-23 school year.

The books include titles like “Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope,” which is centered on the author’s transgender son, and “Love, Violet,” which tells the story of two young girls in a same-sex romance.

“The book has a clear message,” Alito said of one of the books, indicating he had read several of the titles.

“And a lot of people think it is a good message. And maybe it is a good message, but it is a message that a lot of people who hold on to traditional religious beliefs don’t agree with,” he added.

Initially, the school board allowed parents to opt out their children, but the county rescinded the option beginning the following school year.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh repeatedly questioned why the school district was refusing the option and walked through Montgomery County’s history of being a “beacon” of religious liberty.

“I guess I am a bit mystified, as a lifelong resident of the county, how it came to this,” Kavanaugh said.

As the county removed the opt-out option, an organization and three sets of Muslim, Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox parents sued, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which regularly brings religion cases before the high court.

“The First Amendment demands more,” Eric Baxter, senior counsel at Becket, told the justices of the county’s policy.

The parents argue the county’s decision violates the Supreme Court’s holding in a 1972 case, Wisconsin v. Yoder, in which it ruled Wisconsin couldn't require Amish children to attend public school beyond the eighth grade, because parents have the constitutional right to guide the religious future and education of their children.

But lower courts declined to put the county’s policy on hold as the case proceeded, saying the plaintiffs didn't show their religious exercise was substantially burdened. The parents appealed to the Supreme Court after a divided panel on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected their bid.

Though a majority of the court’s conservatives seemed ready to rule with the parents, the justices explored several different legal avenues for how to get there.

Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, two of President Trump’s appointees to the court, repeatedly questioned if they should consider whether the county’s policy demonstrates hostility against certain practices that amounts to religious discrimination.

Meanwhile, the court’s three liberal justices raised concerns about where to draw the line, peppering hypotheticals about a gay teacher who has a photo of their same-sex spouse on their desk or a teacher who calls a transgender student by their preferred pronouns.

“It’ll be like opt-outs for everyone,” Justice Elena Kagan said.

Outside the courthouse, dozens of protesters gathered at side-by-side competing rallies.

The group supporting the county read some of the books used by the school district, carrying signs with messages such as “Our Love is Louder.” The competing group included demonstrators who held signs displaying slogans like “Let Kids be Kids” and “Let Parents Parent.”

The case is the first of two this session in which the justices will delve into religion and schools. Next week, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on the bid in Oklahoma to create the nation’s first religious public charter school.

Медиа: image / jpeg

A federal appeals court panel looked for middle ground Tuesday on President Trump’s executive order effectively barring transgender people from serving openly in the military, expressing skepticism of the ban but unease over a nationwide block on its implementation.

Trump’s order, penned in January, declared that transgender service members can't meet the "rigorous standards” necessary to serve, an extension of the culture war rhetoric the president made a hallmark of his campaign.

The Defense Department’s subsequent policy ordered the military to remove service members with gender dysphoria and to pause integration of new transgender recruits.

The policy came under scrutiny by a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit as it weighs whether to halt a district judge’s order barring Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and other military officials from implementing or otherwise effectuating the policy while the Trump administration appeals.

Judge Cornelia Pillard, an appointee of former President Obama, dominated the arguments with pointed questions about the scope of the president’s order and ensuing policy. She took specific aim at the administration's contention that the policy is not an all-out ban.

“Your argument that this is not a ban on transgender service is that you can serve as a transgender person as long as you don't serve as a transgender person, is that right?” Pillard asked.

“I certainly wouldn't put it that way,” Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyer Jason Manion replied.

A Department of Defense memo dated Feb. 26 said individuals with a “current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria” are not fit for military service. It added that the Pentagon recognizes only two sexes, male and female, in compliance with another Trump executive order, and requires service members to “only serve in accordance with their sex.”

Several active service members and individuals seeking to enlist in the military sued the Trump administration after the order was signed, asserting it violates their constitutional rights.

Manion argued Tuesday it was “clearly erroneous” for the lower court to treat the policy as "broader" than it is in practice, claiming it focuses on a medical condition and related medical treatments as opposed to a person’s expressed gender identity.

But Pillard pushed back that transgender people who live in a sex other than their birth sex are explicitly banned by the policy, even if that person has never been diagnosed with gender dysphoria — distress that stems from a mismatch between a person’s gender identity and sex at birth.

"It's clearly banning all transgender persons,” the judge said.

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, the lower court judge, noted in a hearing before she ruled that symptoms of gender dysphoria could “mean anything,” from “cross-dressing” to mental health conditions like depression. In her order blocking the ban, she called the policy “soaked in animus.”

Manion argued that, even if the appeals judges must defer to Reyes's view that animus motivated the Trump administration's decision, it wouldn’t resolve the legal question of whether the courts can “shortcut” the deference usually given to the military in its decisionmaking.

“Are you conceding that there was animus?” Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee, interjected.

The DOJ lawyer said he wasn’t, calling Reyes’s finding “clear error.”

Pillard also challenged the extent of deference owed to the military, questioning whether it would be “rational” to defer if the military had instead said people with red hair must be kicked out of the military instead of transgender service members.

The panel’s two conservatives, Rao and Judge Gregory Katsas, seemed willing to narrow the injunction without letting the ban move forward in full force.

Rao wondered whether the military should be required to decide on a case-by-case basis whether transgender service members can serve, instead of the sweeping catch-all in place now.

Katsas, another Trump appointee, asked what happens when a service member already serving discovers a condition that would have disqualified them from joining the military, probing whether a different process is used than the one being put to transgender troops.

However, Rao also pressed a lawyer for the ban's challengers over whether Reyes’s universal injunction, which blocked the Trump administration from effectuating the ban nationwide, goes too far.

“Isn’t the government likely to succeed on challenging this remedy, the universal injunction at issue here?” she asked.

Katsas also seemed inclined to wait and see how the issue plays out in other courts. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on Friday declined to halt a similar court order while the government appeals in another lawsuit challenging the ban, likely setting up a battle at the Supreme Court.

“Can you tell us anything about the government's plans and pace for seeking Supreme Court review?” Katsas asked.

Manion said the government plans to seek intervention from the high court “imminently.”

“That may well be quite relevant to the court's analysis as well,” Katsas said.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The Supreme Court seemed open on Monday to upholding the constitutionality of an ObamaCare requirement that insurance companies cover certain preventive care recommended by an expert panel.

Conservative Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett both seemed inclined to support the position of the government and uphold the requirement, though their questions left room for uncertainty and interpretation.

Monday's case was the culmination of five years of legal wrangling. It centered on the role of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force in setting insurance coverage requirements.

The health law requires insurers to cover services the task force recommends with a “grade” of A or B, like cancer screenings and HIV-prevention drugs.

The task force is made of medical experts who serve four-year terms on a volunteer basis. They are appointed by the Health and Human Services secretary and are supposed to be shielded from political influence. Congress designed the task force to be “independent and, to the extent practicable, not subject to political pressure.”

The challengers are a group of conservative Texas employers and individuals who argued the mandates are unconstitutional because the task force’s members are “inferior officers” who aren’t appointed by the president or confirmed by the Senate.

A federal appeals court in New Orleans last year agreed with that argument and ruled the task force was unconstitutional, though the ruling applied only to the challenger and was not enforced nationwide.

The Trump White House, though long antagonistic toward ObamaCare, surprisingly chose to continue the Biden administration's defense of the law.

During oral arguments, Principal Deputy Solicitor General Hashim Mooppan argued the secretary has the authority to remove members for any reason. Just because the panel is independent from political pressure doesn’t mean there are no consequences if members do something the secretary disagrees with, he argued.

The administration also argued that if removability were not enough, the justices could "sever" the language in the law that requires the task force to be politically independent. That would allow the secretary to directly approve or deny the task force recommendations.

Justice Elena Kagan and others noted the challengers were arguing for the broadest definition of the word “independent.”

"Your argument really does rise or fall on how we read that independence language,” Kagan told Jonathan Mitchell, the conservative attorney representing the challengers.

Mitchell said the entire phrase “protected from political pressure” was incompatible with giving the secretary broad oversight, not just the word “independent.” If panel members can be removed at any time, they are not independent, he argued.

Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett repeatedly described Mitchell’s interpretation of the word “independent” as “maximalist.”

Barrett compared the idea of “independent” panel members to law clerks. Justices will ask clerks to give their unvarnished opinions “free of political influence or free of outside influence,” she noted, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t consider how she would interpret the issues.

But Kagan and conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh also questioned why the court would agree with the challengers that the task force was a powerful independent agency. The 6-3 conservative majority court has been slicing away at the authority of independent agencies.

“We don’t go around just creating independent agencies. More often we destroy independent agencies,” Kagan said. “The idea that we would take a statute that doesn't set up an independent agency and declare it one strikes me as pretty inconsistent as everything we’ve done in this area.”

Similarly, Kavanaugh said Mitchell’s argument "depends on us treating the task force as this massively important agency that operates with unreviewable authority.”

If that were the case, “Congress would have provided stronger indications” that the task force "is more powerful than the secretary or the president. ... I just don't see indications of that," Kavanaugh said.

The court is likely to issue a ruling in June. But even if the constitutionality of the task force is upheld, other issues will remain.

A decision upholding the task force’s authority would also reinforce the ability of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to exert control over the recommendations, which makes public health groups uneasy.

But Richard Hughes IV, an attorney with Epstein Becker Green, said he thinks Kennedy will have bigger targets than task force recommendations, and a ruling upholding the panel won’t empower him any more than is currently the case.

“As concerned as a lot of us are ... I don't see it as something he's going to view as [giving him] additional license, that's going to cause him to be more aggressive about anything,” Hughes said. “I do think vaccines are a much bigger target for RFK Jr. than PREP for HIV or screenings. It's really hard to argue that the screenings are bad interventions ... from a chronic disease perspective, they're just screenings.”

Медиа: image / jpeg

The Supreme Court on Monday said it will weigh whether the U.S. Postal Service can be held liable for failing to deliver mail to a Black landlord who claims her carriers discriminated against her because of her race.

The justices agreed to hear the federal government's appeal of a lower court ruling allowing Lebene Konan to seek damages over claims the Postal Service intentionally refused to deliver mail to two addresses she leased.

Konan claims two Postal Service employees engaged in a "racially motivated harassment campaign" against her, making it "impossible" for her or her tenants in Euless, Texas, to receive their mail "solely because she is Black."

The postal workers' alleged actions — which included changing the designated owner of one of her properties to a white tenant and changing the mailbox lock at the property so only the white tenant could access it — cost Konan thousands of dollars in rental income when tenants moved out after failing to receive important mail like doctor’s bills, medications and credit card statements, she said.

Konan sued the Postal Service under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which typically bars tort lawsuits against the government for damages unless a federal employee commits a "wrongful or negligent act" within their official duties. However, the Justice Department says the FTCA doesn't apply to claims "arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter."

While a district court dismissed Konan's suit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit unanimously allowed it to proceed.

The Justice Department argues that Congress put the postal exception in place to protect mail delivery from "disruptive litigation."

"[The Postal Service] delivers more than 300 million pieces of mail every day on average," the government wrote in its petition to the high court. "Under the logic of the Fifth Circuit’s decision, any person whose mail is lost or misdelivered could bring a federal tort suit—and potentially proceed to burdensome discovery—so long as she alleges that a [Postal Service] employee acted intentionally."

But Konan said Congress's exception was meant to protect the government from lawsuits stemming from less consequential mail issues than hers, like glassware shattering during shipping or a belated birthday gift.

"This case couldn’t be more different," Robert Clary, her lawyer, wrote in an opposition brief.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito faulted his colleagues for temporarily halting deportation flights under the Alien Enemies Act “literally in the middle of the night.”

Alito’s dissent, also sent out at nearly midnight Saturday, came after the court agreed in the early hours of the morning to block for now any additional flights that would transport migrants to a Salvadoran prison.

"The Court issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief without giving the lower courts a chance to rule, without hearing from the opposing party, within eight hours of receiving the application, with dubious factual support for its order, and without providing any explanation for its order,” he wrote.

“I refused to join the Court's order because we had no good reason to think that, under the circumstances, issuing an order at midnight was necessary or appropriate.”

The court took the unusual step of issuing its ruling without waiting for Alito to share his dissent — another detail demonstrating the swiftness of the court's actions after it was asked to intervene.

While the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had challenged the suspected removals in lower courts, it quickly launched appeals seeking emergency relief.

“The Government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this Court,” the Supreme Court’s order reads.

The class extends to any migrant detained in the Northern District of Texas who is being removed under the 18th century Alien Enemies Act. It does not apply elsewhere, though judges overseeing separate cases have temporarily blocked deportations for those detained in the Southern District of New York, the District of Colorado and the Southern District of Texas.

The 1798 law enables migrants to be summarily deported amid a declared war or an “invasion” by a foreign nation. The law has been leveraged three previous times, all during wars, but Trump contends he can use it because the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua is effectively invading the U.S.

The Trump administration first began using the law last month when it deported more than 100 Venezuelan men to a Salvadoran mega prison. Also on those flights were Salvadoran nationals the government has said are members of the MS-13 gang.

But the removal of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national and Maryland resident who an immigration court in 2019 ordered protected from deportation to his home country, shows the stakes of such removals.

The Justice Department has said Abrego Garcia was removed due to an “administrative error,” but it has since argued it has no power to secure the return of him or any of the other men once they were released into the custody of another government.

The Trump administration on Saturday asked for clarification from the high court, asking it to refine its order to allow Alien Enemies Act deportations for any migrant who has not challenged their removal. It also asked the court to clarify whether they may remove migrants to El Salvador under immigration authorities.

Медиа: image / jpeg

An appeals court has temporarily halted a lower court’s order that enabled the release of contested climate funds.

Earlier this week, District Judge Tanya Chutkan blocked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from clawing back billions of dollars in climate funds that were given to climate finance organizations during the Biden administration.

Her order directed Citibank to release the funds to the green bank groups as soon as Thursday.

However, late Wednesday an appeals court issued a different ruling that prevented the funds from being released and instead maintained the status quo.

A panel of appeals court judges ordered that the funds should neither be returned to the U.S. Treasury Department nor released to the climate organizations so that the panel would have adequate time to consider the case.

The funds in question were part of a $20 billion program from the Democrats' Inflation Reduction Act that gave nonprofits money to use to fund climate-friendly projects.

The Biden administration awarded that $20 billion to eight institutions. Since taking office, the Trump administration has tried to recoup the money.

When Chutkan ordered the funds released, the EPA appealed. It said in a statement at the time that the grants “are terminated, and the funds belong to the U.S. taxpayer. We couldn’t be more confident in the merits of our appeal and will take every possible step to protect hard-earned taxpayer dollars.”

The agency declined to comment on the latest order.

Meanwhile, Beth Bafford, CEO of Climate United, which was one of the grant recipients, said in a written statement, “We remain firm on the merits of our case and will press forward to deliver on our promises to communities across America.”

Ella Lee contributed.

Медиа: image / jpeg

A federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to unfreeze funds under Biden-era laws authorizing massive investments in climate-friendly projects.

U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy, an appointee of President Trump during his first term, on Tuesday ordered five federal agencies to immediately resume disbursing already-awarded funds appropriated under the Inflation Reduction Act and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, two of the Biden administration's hallmark climate laws.

She also blocked the Trump administration from reinstating the funding freeze “under a different name.”

“The Court wants to be crystal clear: elections have consequences and the President is entitled to enact his agenda,” McElroy wrote. “The judiciary does not and cannot decide whether his policies are sound.”

However, “agencies do not have unlimited authority to further a President’s agenda, nor do they have unfettered power to hamstring in perpetuity two statutes passed by Congress during the previous administration,” she said.

Several environmental nonprofits that received grants under the laws sued after the administration froze those funds so agencies could review their spending to make sure it lined up with Trump’s agenda. They’re backed by the left-leaning legal watchdog Democracy Forward.

In her order, McElroy said the government’s “about-face” on the funding became known to grant recipients via a “combination of confusion and silence” as organizations began realizing their funds were inaccessible.

She rejected the Justice Department's arguments that the groups’ complaints amount to a contract dispute and should be considered by a different court, an argument the government has made in several lawsuits challenging the funding freeze.

“Since the Court finds that the proper source of the Nonprofits’ rights is federal statute and regulations and because the relief sought is injunctive in nature, the Court determines that the ‘essence’ of the action is not contractual in nature,” she wrote, affirming that her court has jurisdiction to weigh the matter.

The agencies blocked from withholding the funds are the Departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Interior and Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency.

The other defendants, the Office of Management and Budget and National Economic Council, were ordered to provide written notice of the court’s preliminary injunction to all agencies who received the memorandum barring disbursement of the funds.

Skye Perryman, president of Democracy Forward, called the ruling a “crucial victory for the rule of law” in a statement Tuesday.

“We are pleased that a federal court has seen the Trump administration’s freeze of congressionally approved funds for what it is: another abuse of executive power that has already inflicted harm on communities nationwide,” she said.

Медиа: image / jpeg