SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
constitutional rights
'This Guy Is Toxic': Susan Crawford Defeats World's Richest Man Elon Musk in Wisconsin
"As a result of your strong grassroots organizing, you have defeated the wealthiest person on earth," said Sen. Bernie Sanders to the state's voters after the Supreme Court race was called. "You have set an example for the rest of the country."
Apr 01, 2025
The battle over a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court was settled decisively on Tuesday night as the Democratic favorite Susan Crawford dispatched with far-right favorite Brad Schimel, a candidate backed by tens of millions of dollars in outside money and corporate interests, including an estimated $20 million or more from President Donald Trump sycophant and world's wealthiest individual Elon Musk.
As of this writing, Crawford, a Dane County Judge, was enjoying "an unexpectedly easy" win with 55.5% of the vote compared to the 44.5% received by Schimel, the state's former Republican attorney general. Numerous decision desks called the race in her favor shortly after polls closed, and the returns were clear.
"Thank you," Crawford said in a victory speech from the city of Madison shortly after 9:30 pm local time. "Alright, Wisconsin—we did it!"
Crawford said she had just received a concession phone call from Schimel—describing him as "gracious" in defeat—as she thanked the people of Wisconsin for delivering a hard-fought victory in what has been documented as the "most expensive judicial race ever" in U.S. history.
"Tonight, the grassroots have risen up to defeat Musk and the MAGA authoritarianism he's funding."
"Thank you for trusting me to serve you on the Wisconsin Supreme Court," she told the audience of supporters and national television cameras. "I'm so grateful to have earned the trust and support of voters across this great state." She explained that she got into this race—like how she had spent her life—"to do what's right, to protect the rights and fundamental freedoms of all Wisconites."
Crediting her career success to the values learned in the small Wisconsin town of Chippewa Falls—"where people watched out for each other" and people respected the ability to "tell right from wrong"—Crawford said that growing up she never imagined she would ultimately "be taking on the richest man in the world" in a political fight that has gained national attention and was widely seen as a political referendum on the first two months of the Trump administration's policies.
The battle, she said, was "over justice in Wisconsin—and we won!"
Musk has become a key factor in the race over recent weeks by spending millions of his own money backing Schimel. One gimmick he used over the recent weekend was handing out $1 million checks to people, according to critics, to purchase their support and vote.
Progressive lawmakers were among those chiming in with applause Tuesday night.
"Elon Musk spent MILLIONS to defeat Susan Crawford in Wisconsin—and it was an epic fail," declared Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) after announcing her victory. "Voters saw through his schemes, and our country is better off for it. Thank you, Wisconsinites."
Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of the progressive advocacy group Our Revolution, was among those celebrating Crawford's win as an apparent rebuke to Musk and President Trump.
"Despite pouring over $20 million into this race—including handing out million-dollar checks to voters—the world's wealthiest man has failed to secure a conservative majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court," said Geevarghese. "Crawford's victory is a decisive win for protecting abortion access and workers' rights in Wisconsin. It also serves as a crucial safeguard against Donald Trump's ongoing attempts to subvert American democracy and erode judicial independence."
While the resounding defeat of Schimel by voters will be "viewed as a critical referendum on Trump and Musk’s dangerous, lawless agenda," he added, the amount of money spent during the race "also stands as a stark warning about the deep corruption within our broken campaign finance system. With spending exceeding $100 million, this election has become the most expensive state Supreme Court race in U.S. history, with billionaire donations flooding in on both sides."
"Tonight, the grassroots have risen up to defeat Musk and the MAGA authoritarianism he's funding," Geevarghese said. "But the fight to eliminate dark money from our political system is far from over. Continued inaction poses an urgent, looming threat to our democracy and way of life."
American Bridge, a research and rapid response group with close ties to the Democratic Party, feasted on Schimel's loss by deriding the GOP favorite as the "biggest loser in Wisconsin history."
"Wisconsinites have spoken, and together their votes decided that Wisconsin needs leaders who will protect our freedoms while rejecting the politics of fear and division."
Schimel, said the group's spokesperson Monica Venzke, "clearly can’t take a hint, but hopefully this time it sticks—Wisconsin wants nothing to do with him. Not even his out-of-state billionaire supporter could buy him this one. Imagine spending over $18 million and still losing."
According to Venzke, the defeat of Schimel despite the tens of millions spent by corporate forces "is just a preview of how voters are rejecting Trump's agenda of folding to billionaires. Republicans around the country have a choice: stand up to Trump, or lose."
Lucy Ripp, communications director for Better Wisconsin Together, which represents progressives' concerns in the state, also credited the work of the state's grassroots, which she suggested was a model for people nationwide.
"Wisconsinites have spoken, and together their votes decided that Wisconsin needs leaders who will protect our freedoms while rejecting the politics of fear and division," said Ripp. "Wisconsin voters chose common sense, progress, and freedom over a radical, right-wing partisan agenda that thrives on dividing our communities and leaving working families behind in service of billionaires and special interests."
"By maintaining a strong progressive majority, the Wisconsin Supreme Court will continue as a first line of defense in protecting Wisconsinites' constitutional rights and freedoms," added Ripp, "and a vital check on the Trump and Musk agenda amid the barrage of threats to our rights and livelihoods coming down from the White House."
As of this writing, neither Trump nor Musk had acknowledged Crawford's victory over Schimel on their main social media channels—though each celebrated the approval of a controversial and "regressive" voter I.D. law in the state. To some critics, their twin silence on the Supreme Court race felt like quite a loud statement.
Keep ReadingShow Less
In Rebuke to Trump, Court Orders Mahmoud Khalil Case Moved to New Jersey
"This is a first step, but we need to continue to demand justice for Mahmoud," said Khalil's wife. "His unlawful and unjust detention cannot stand."
Mar 19, 2025
A federal judge on Wednesday ruled that the case of Mahmoud Khalil, a permanent U.S. resident arrested earlier this month and slated for deportation by immigration authorities over his pro-Palestine activism, should be heard in New Jersey—not Louisiana as sought by the Trump administration—and reaffirmed an order blocking his expulsion from the country pending the outcome of his legal challenge.
Judge Jesse Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York found that since Khalil was detained by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in New Jersey when he lodged a legal challenge to his detention, his case should be transferred to the Garden State. Last week, Furman—an appointee of former President Barack Obama—issued and then
extended an order temporarily barring Khalil's deportation.
"This is a first step, but we need to continue to demand justice for Mahmoud," Khalil's wife, Noor Abdalla, who is eight months pregnant, said in response to Wednesday's ruling. "His unlawful and unjust detention cannot stand. We will not stop fighting until he is home with me."
Khalil, an Algerian citizen of Palestinian descent, last year finished his graduate studies at Columbia University, where he helped lead campus protests against Israel's annihilation of Gaza. He was arrested at his New York home by plainclothes DHS officers on March 8 before being transferred to New Jersey and then Louisiana.
Accused of no crime and widely considered a political prisoner, Khalil was targeted following U.S. President Donald Trump's issuance of an executive order authorizing the deportation of noncitizen students and others who take part in pro-Palestine demonstrations. The Trump administration has also invoked the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which empowers the secretary of state to expel noncitizens whose presence in the United States is deemed detrimental to U.S. foreign policy interests.
Samah Sisay, a staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights and a member of Khalil's legal team, said Wednesday that "the government transferred Mr. Khalil to a remote private prison in Louisiana hours after his arrest and the filing of his original habeas petition—an intentional and retaliatory attempt to silence his speech in support of Palestinian rights and interfere with the jurisdiction of the New York and New Jersey courts."
"Mr. Khalil should be free and home with his wife awaiting the birth of their first child, and we will continue to do everything possible to make that happen," Sisay added.
ACLU senior staff attorney Brett Max Kaufman, who also represents Khalil, said that "this is just the beginning, but it is a moment to celebrate."
"The court's ruling sends a critical message to courts across the country, who are sure to face similar unprecedented challenges to their authority in the days that come, that the judiciary must not shy from its constitutional role," he continued. "And no judicial role is more important than acting as a check on executive abuses the Trump administration has made the defining feature of its first 60 days."
"After this first step, we will eagerly and aggressively seek to get Mahmoud out, bring him home, and then defend his and others' right to speak freely about Palestine or any other issue without fear of detention and deportation," Kaufman added.
Another lawyer for Khalil, Amy Greer, said: "We are ready to fight just as hard for Mr. Khalil in the district of New Jersey. He was taken by plainclothes federal agents, transferred in the middle of the night across state lines, and has been detained for over a week now, all because of his advocacy for Palestinian freedom. We will not stop working until Mr. Khalil is home with his wife."
Democracy defenders have warned that Khalil's arrest—which sparked protests across the nation—is a blatant violation of constitutionally protected free speech rights and a sign of advancing authoritarianism. Trump vowed last week that Khalil was "the first arrest of many to come."
On Tuesday, Khalil released a
letter calling himself a "political prisoner." He called his arrest and detention "a direct consequence of exercising my right to free speech as I advocated for a free Palestine and an end to the genocide in Gaza," and "part of a broader strategy to suppress dissent" from which no one is immune.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Plays Very Dangerous Game by Saying 'F You' to Judicial Orders
If this deportation case goes to the Supreme Court and the president ignores its ruling, every American should take to the street to secure his ouster.
Mar 18, 2025
After a federal judge pressed the Trump administration to provide evidence by 5 pm Monday about whether the White House had violated the court’s order in deporting migrants with little to no due process, so-called border czar Tom Homan said that the flights would continue regardless. “We’re not stopping,” he said. “I don’t care what the judges think.”
In our system, judges don’t just “think.” They have the final say, unless their rulings are appealed to the Supreme Court, in which case the high court’s majority has the final final say.
On Monday afternoon, it became apparent that Trump’s Justice Department shares Homan’s odd view of our judicial system. DOJ lawyers filed papers telling the judge that the administration would not provide any further information about the deportation flights, and that the court should vacate the hearing.
Later, speaking Monday evening on Fox News, Attorney General Pam Bondi criticized the judge, saying “What he’s done is an intrusion on the president’s authority.”
What’s going on here?
A very dangerous game.
On Sunday night, Trump told reporters that a federal judge in California who ordered the administration to rehire thousands of fired probationary workers was “putting himself in the position of the president of the United States, who was elected by close to 80 million votes.”
Excuse me? In our system of government, courts pass judgment on actions of a president and the executive branch. Courts don’t put themselves in the “position” of a president. They act as the Constitution empowers them to act — as a co-equal branch of government.
If the executive branch doesn’t agree with what a lower-court judge decides, it can appeal to a higher court and ultimately to the Supreme Court.
Trump isn’t the only one to make this unconstitutional claim. In early February, Trump’s vice president, JD Vance, declared that “judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.” It was an odd statement coming from someone who has studied at one of America’s preeminent law schools — and it was logically absurd, since it’s up to judges (and eventually the Supreme Court’s justices) to determine a president’s “legitimate power.”
Let’s be clear. Trump has openly violated numerous laws and constitutional provisions — such as ending birthright citizenship; giving associates of Elon Musk’s government-slashing effort access to a sensitive Treasury Department system; transferring transgender female inmates to male prisons; placing thousands of U.S. Agency for International Development employees on leave; and effectively dismantling USAID and folding it into the State Department.
In response, federal judges have temporarily barred a slew of Trump orders from taking effect.
But not until now has Trump or his regime blatantly refused to follow a judge’s order.
What happens when this or another lower-court ruling goes to the Supreme Court, and the high court rules against Trump?
Vance has said that if this occurs, Trump should “stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say, ‘The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.’”
Never mind that the quote attributed to Jackson is, as one scholar has noted, “probably apocryphal.” It’s heard more and more from Trump appointees these days, as exemplified by Homan’s remark this morning and this afternoon’s Justice Department filing.
Trump’s appointments in his second term are having the opposite effect of his first-term appointees. In his first term, they restrained him somewhat. Recall that the Justice Department’s top brass threatened to resign en masse if he appointed as attorney general the one assistant attorney general who was prepared to sell his soul to Trump and say the 2020 election was stolen from him.
This time, his appointees are magnifying his worst instincts. Rather than act as guardrails, they are egging Trump on.
Many people wonder if we’re in a “constitutional crisis.” Definitions of that phrase vary considerably, as do opinions about whether we’re in one now.
My worry is that Trump is surrounded by extremist anti-democracy nihilists, including his vice president, who are encouraging him to defy the Supreme Court.
If and when he does, we’ll be in a constitutional crisis that should cause every American to take to the streets.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular