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
judiciary
House GOP Passes Bill That Moves Toward Making Trump a 'King With Unlimited Power'
"House Republicans want to make it harder for federal courts to serve as a check on Trump's lawlessness and overreach," said one advocate. "But that's not how our democracy works."
Apr 10, 2025
With the Trump administration's attacks on the First Amendment, birthright citizenship, and other constitutional rights in full swing, Republicans in the U.S. House on Wednesday passed a bill that one advocacy group called a "sneak attack" on another bedrock principle of U.S. democracy.
"The passage of the No Rogue Rulings Act (NORRA) is an ideological attack on the checks and balances of our Constitution," said Celina Stewart, CEO of the League of Women Voters.
The bill, which passed 219-213, with only Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio) joining Democrats in opposing it, would limit U.S. District Court judges' ability to issue nationwide injunctions blocking President Donald Trump's executive orders.
The legislation was proposed by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) after federal judges blocked several actions by Trump, including his executive order aiming to end birthright citizenship, his mass expulsion of immigrants to El Salvador's prison system, his freeze on federal grants and loans, and the so-called Department of Government Efficiency's (DOGE) mass firings of federal employees.
NORRA "brings us one step closer to dismantling our democracy for the benefit of one man and his extreme agenda that is actively harming people across the country," said Maggie Jo Buchanan, interim executive director of the judicial reform group Demand Justice. "Anyone who voted in favor of this bill failed them and our country today."
"Passage of this bill by the U.S. House is an overreach on the part of the legislative branch, and we urge the U.S. Senate to reject this legislation when it comes to the floor."
Members of the judiciary including Judges James Boasberg, Paul A. Engelmayer, and John Batestes have faced calls for impeachment over their respective rulings blocking Trump from sending planeloads of immigrants to El Salvador, barring DOGE from accessing the Treasury Department's payment system, and directing federal health agencies to restore public health data to their websites after Trump ordered them to delete it.
With impeachment votes unlikely to succeed, Stewart said the legislation proposed by Issa "is a political attempt to restrain and block our federal courts from their constitutional responsibility."
"Judges appointed to the federal bench are independent bodies that review executive and legislative actions to determine their constitutionality. This is a simple process that has been in place for centuries," said Stewart.
"The League believes that all powers of the U.S. government should be exercised within the constitutional framework to protect the balance among the three branches of government," she added. "Passage of this bill by the U.S. House is an overreach on the part of the legislative branch, and we urge the U.S. Senate to reject this legislation when it comes to the floor."
Christina Harvey, executive director of the progressive advocacy group Stand Up America, suggested that in their attacks on federal judges, Republicans are trying to weaken "the first line of defense against Donald Trump's attempts to cut essential services and attack our freedoms."
"In response to legal rulings that haven't gone Trump's way, House Republicans want to make it harder for federal courts to serve as a check on Trump's lawlessness and overreach," said Harvey. "But that's not how our democracy works. Trump is a president bound by the checks and balances of our Constitution, not a king with unlimited power."
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) pointed to the landmark Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education to highlight the irrationality of Republicans' attempt to bar judges from applying their rulings to the entire nation.
"A nationwide injunction is a necessary part of the judicial tool kit," Raskin told NBC News. "Why should every person affected [by an issue] have to go to court? Why should millions of people have to create their own case? Why should Brown vs. Board of Education have applied to just Linda Brown as opposed to everybody affected?"
Harvey called on Senate leaders to "uphold their oath and block any attempt to weaken the federal courts."
"Anything less," she said, "would be walking away from their constitutional duties."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump DOJ Turns to Supreme Court to Lift Ban on El Salvador Deportation Scheme
The appeal to the Supreme Court is the latest move in an unfolding battle between the judiciary and the White House.
Mar 28, 2025
The U.S. Department of Justice on Friday appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to lift a lower court restriction on the Trump administration's ability to continue to carrying out deportations using the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, a wartime authority U.S. President Donald Trump invoked in mid-March to deport Venezuelan immigrants he alleged, without evidence, were criminal gang members but who legal experts say are the victims of authoritarian overreach and still entitled to due process.
The deportees are currently being held at a megaprison in El Salvador, which U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem toured on Wednesday, in part to film a video in front of the incarcerated men—a move that was widely decried as sadistic and fascist behavior by a senior administration official.
On March 15, the same day that Trump published an executive order stating its intention to use the Alien Enemies Act to carry out deportations, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued a nationwide temporary restraining order, halting furthering removals of noncitizens under The Alien Enemies Act. The rarely used provision, never before invoked when the U.S. was not engaged in a war authorized by Congress, gives the president the ability to detain or deport noncitizens without first appearing before an immigration judge or federal court judge.
On Wednesday, a federal appeals court panel kept in place Boasberg's order while the court decides on the underlying legal issues in the case—prompting the Trump administration to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The administration is asking the court to overturn Boasberg's block, arguing that—in the words of Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris—the "case presents fundamental questions about who decides how to conduct sensitive national-security-related operations in this country—the president, through Article II, or the judiciary, through [temporary restraining orders]."
As with other recent appeals from the Trump administration, according to CNN, the White House's argument before the Supreme Court leaned on complaints that the lower courts are standing in Trump's way.
"Only this court can stop rule-by-[temporary restraining order] from further upending the separation of powers—the sooner, the better," Harris told the Supreme Court. "Here, the district court's orders have rebuffed the president's judgments as to how to protect the nation against foreign terrorist organizations and risk debilitating effects for delicate foreign negotiations."
On March 18, Trump called Boasberg a “Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge, a troublemaker and agitator," and also said that "this judge, like many of the Crooked Judges' I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!" Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) said a few days prior that he would be would "be filing articles of impeachment against activist Judge James Boasberg."
Days later, John Roberts, the conservative chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, issued a rare statement rebuking calls from Trump and members of his orbit for the impeachment of federal judges who have ruled against the administration.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Big Law Needs to Stand up to Trump
The attack on law firms will not stop until the entire legal profession uses the skills of advocacy and persuasion that is its craft to explain how and why the political intimidation being used by the administration threatens its independence.
Mar 26, 2025
The legal profession is under attack in ways never imagined before. In recent weeks, U.S. President Donald Trump has targeted three large law firms with executive orders designed to cripple their practices in retaliation for representing Democratic candidates and causes.
On Friday, the assault moved to a new level with the issuance of a memorandum threatening all lawyers with unspecified sanctions and penalties who challenge the president or his administration.
What matters now is how the legal profession responds.
Why would a client choose lawyers to represent them who won’t stand up for themselves?
The orders pose existential threats to the firms. Two of the orders bar the firms’ lawyers from entering federal buildings and require the firms’ clients to report their connection with the law firm in any bid for government contracts.
Faced with the risk that their corporate clients would leave, one of the law firms, Perkins Coie, decided to fight, and another, Paul Weiss, decided last Thursday to cut a deal with the White House. In exchange for lifting the executive order, Paul Weiss promised to provide $40 million of free legal services to support President Trump’s political initiatives and agenda.
The decision made by Paul Weiss was a grievous mistake.
In the short term, it is hard to understand how cutting a deal with this President solves the problem Paul Weiss faces. It is as likely that clients will bolt the firm in disgust over the firm’s decision to capitulate in the face of a threat as it was with the executive order in place. Why would a client choose lawyers to represent them who won’t stand up for themselves?
This sentiment may well gain traction in the coming weeks, given that the firm that decided to fight, Perkins Coie, so far appears successful in its efforts to hold the executive order unlawful in court.
It is also difficult to see how Paul Weiss can ensure the benefit of any bargain it thinks it got. A deal with Trump is not worth the paper it is written on. The White House is already recasting the deal to promote its interests. It claims that Brad Karp, the managing partner of Paul Weiss, promised to end diversity initiatives at the firm and agreed that a former partner at the firm, Mark Pomerantz, who left the firm years ago and later joined the prosecution team in a case brought against President Trump, had engaged in “wrongdoing.” None of that appears in the copy of the agreement circulated by Mr. Karp to his firm.
And nothing in the agreement prevents President Trump from reinstating the executive order if Paul Weiss fails to do what he wants. It is no different from what the Trump Justice Department has attempted to do with New York City Mayor Eric Adams. There, Justice Department lawyers have asked a federal judge to drop bribery charges against the mayor, but without giving up the right to reassert the charges in the future. Like a mafia boss, it gives the president unfettered power to force a supplicant to do his bidding.
But the more important point that has been lost in the discussion over what Paul Weiss has done is the long-term damage it will do to the independence of the legal profession.
Before Paul Weiss cut its deal, President Trump made clear he was coming after the entire profession, not just three firms. Ten days ago, the newly installed chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced the agency was investigating 20 of the country’s most prominent firms for alleged discriminatory practices related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).
The EEOC investigation is a fishing expedition. None of the investigatory letters sent to the law firms identifies any practice that violates federal anti-discrimination law. As seven former EEOC officials point out in a recent open letter, the EEOC has far exceeded its own authority in making the inquiry. The purpose is to intimidate and create fear. It sends the message to all firms, and their collective clients, to end efforts to diversify their workforce or the government will come for you.
Paul Weiss’ decision to capitulate adds fuel to the fire. Having put a gun to the head of one of the country’s biggest firms and walked away with $40 million in free legal services makes it more likely President Trump will target more law firms with executive orders and investigations. He did just that on Friday night with the issuance of the new memorandum.
The threat to the rule of law posed by this attack is far bigger than any one legal issue. It is a brazen assault on the right of lawyers to represent their clients to the best of their ability within the bounds of the law and the ethics of the profession.
The executive orders directed at Perkins Coie and Paul Weiss are designed to deter them from representing clients or causes President Trump opposes. The EEOC investigation warns firms not to interpret the law in ways the Trump government disapproves of. The memorandum is an effort to keep lawyers from challenging the legality of Trump’s actions in court. It is all part of the Trump playbook designed to intimidate and co-opt the best lawyers and law firms who might oppose him, and get them instead to support his initiatives.
We all lose if lawyers fear to represent clients or give their best advice based on political affiliation or interests. An independent judiciary depends on strong and independent lawyers who are free to advocate for and protect the rights of their clients, no matter what political party they belong to. No cases can be decided, and no law can be made, without lawyers to bring cases before judges and argue the merits of a client’s position.
Democracy and the rule of law, in turn, depend on an independent judiciary as a check on tyranny. But it begins with the lawyers. Without a free and unfettered bar, the engine of the judiciary can’t operate.
Chief Justice Roberts has spoken up for the independence of the judiciary with his rebuke of those calling to impeach a federal judge who ruled against the president. It is high time for all law firms to follow suit and stand up in defense of their profession.
The news has reported that Donald Verrilli, the former solicitor general, is preparing an amicus brief, or “friend of the court” brief, in support of Perkins Coie, but that law firms are undecided whether to file it. The handwringing needs to end. Every law firm that cares about its First Amendment freedoms, and the right to practice law as it has been done in this country since its founding, must now come together in support of Perkins Coie with a single voice.
There is no alternative. Benjamin Franklin is credited with observing that “we must all hang together or, most assuredly, we will hang separately.” The attack on law firms will not stop until the entire legal profession, especially Big Law, stands up and uses the skills of advocacy and persuasion that is its craft to explain how and why the political intimidation being used by the Trump administration threatens its independence, and that of the judiciary, upon which our democracy relies.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular