Of course fraud is ok.
Fraud is the fault of the person who got defrauded in Trump world
update - Rumour that Trump will pardon Ghislaine Maxwell to buy her statement that "Trump was not a pedo"
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
Fraud is the fault of the person who got defrauded in Trump world
Ahh. Silly of me to forget. Lol.
But seriously, we're back in the world where norms, rules, laws and ethics only apply to others. Judges who block blatantly illegal executive orders are "interfering". And now, when I pull the Obama/Biden swap on my arch conservative friends I get silence. (Swap is... "If Obama did what Trump did, would you be OK with it?").
Remember how Fox news immediately went to "Tyrant!" On any Obama executive order, despite their legality.
Supreme Court lets Trump take sledgehammer to Education Department, for now | Courthouse News Service
WASHINGTON (CN) — The Supreme Court on Monday granted President Donald Trump’s bid to halt pay for 1,400 Education Department employees while his administration pushes forward with plans to dismantle the agency amid a legal showdown with Democratic states.
In an apparent 6-3 decision, the high court sided with Trump in the now-familiar fight between executive authority and judicial branch oversight, this time in the context of job cuts at the Education Department.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor led the three liberal justices in dissent, calling the decision indefensible. The Barack Obama appointee said the high court had allowed Trump to usurp congressional authority by firing the employees necessary to carry out democratically passed laws.
“When the executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the judiciary’s duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it,” Sotomayor wrote.
Sotomayor said her colleagues had misused the emergency docket and warned that allowing Trump to dismantle the Education Department would have grave consequences.
“The majority is either willfully blind to the implications of its ruling or naive, but either way the threat to our Constitution’s separation of powers is grave,” Sotomayor wrote.
Trump slashed the department’s staff by half in March, spurring a lawsuit from New York Attorney General Letitia James and 20 other states’ attorneys general. A federal judge blocked the cuts after James said the massive cuts would strip necessary services, resources and funding from students and families.
U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer said the preliminary injunction in this case “epitomize[d] many of the same errors in recent district-court injunctions usurping control of the federal workforce.”
Trump fired 1,378 employees from the department through reduction-in-force notices — a hallmark of the administration’s campaign against waste and fraud in the federal government.
New York stated that the massive workforce cuts rendered statutorily mandated functions of the department incapacitated. The state said this includes almost all of the staff who review the certification and recertification of higher education institutions for federal student aid.
“Petitioners have failed to explain how the Department can continue to perform timely certification reviews with no staff, and disruptions in federal certification have already interfered with the ability of public colleges and universities to meet enrollment goals and provide academic programs,” the states wrote.
The states argue that workforce cuts are already harming public education, with missed funding deadlines from the Department of Education disrupting state budgets for the upcoming school year. While they acknowledge the executive branch’s authority to impose staff reductions, they maintain that only Congress has the power to dismantle federal agencies or terminate their functions.
The administration argued that the states’ lawsuit wasn’t the appropriate vehicle to challenge employee terminations, asserting that under the Civil Service Reform Act, only the affected employees—not states, districts, or unions—can seek reinstatement. Trump said the statute prevented the lower court from issuing relief to all 1,400 employees.
The administration argued that the lower court injunction rested on the assumption that every terminated employee is necessary to perform the Education Department’s statutory functions.
“This court’s intervention is essential to halt such perverse results and the one-way litigation ratchet,” Sauer wrote. “Numerous courts in recent months and years have concluded that similar federal-employment suits are precluded.”
Democracy Forward, one of the advocacy organizations representing the states before the court, criticized the majority for not explaining its decision. Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, said the justices dealt a devastating blow to the promise of public education for all children.
“On its shadow docket, the court has yet again ruled to overturn the decision of two lower courts without argument,” Perryman said in a statement. “While this is disappointing, the Trump-Vance administration's actions to decimate a department established by Congress are still unconstitutional.”
While the justices ruling allows Trump to move forward with his plans to dismantle the department, the high court did not decide whether the administration’s actions were lawful.
“We will aggressively pursue every legal option as this case proceeds to ensure that all children in this country have access to the public education they deserve,” Perryman said.
The White House celebrated the ruling as a vindication of the administration’s arguments of Trump’s broad authority over the executive branch.
“The Supreme Court once again recognized what radical district court judges refuse to accept — President Trump, as head of the executive branch, has absolute constitutional authority to direct and manage its agencies and officers,” Liz Huston, a White House spokesperson, said. “President Trump will continue to move education back to the states, empower families, and put students first to improve academic outcomes across America.”
Congress created the Education Department so only Congress can abolish it, Sotomayor wrote. She said Trump’s executive order unquestionable exceeded Congress’ statutory limits on executive authority.
The liberal justices chastised their colleagues for allowing Trump to unlawfully seize power, especially considering the potential harm to education. Sotomayor said the high court’s decision would unleash untold harm by curtailing resources that Congress intended.
“The majority apparently deems it more important to free the government from paying employees it had no right to fire than to avert these very real harms while the litigation continues,” Sotomayor wrote. “Equity does not support such an inequitable result.”
Sotomayor said Trump had a responsibility to take care that the laws were faithfully executed, not set out to dismantle them.
“That basic rule undergirds our Constitution’s separation of powers,” Sotomayor wrote. “Yet today, the majority rewards clear defiance of that core principle with emergency relief. Because I cannot condone such abuse of our equitable authority, I respectfully dissent.”
WASHINGTON (CN) — The Supreme Court on Monday granted President Donald Trump’s bid to halt pay for 1,400 Education Department employees while his administration pushes forward with plans to dismantle the agency amid a legal showdown with Democratic states.
In an apparent 6-3 decision, the high court sided with Trump in the now-familiar fight between executive authority and judicial branch oversight, this time in the context of job cuts at the Education Department.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor led the three liberal justices in dissent, calling the decision indefensible. The Barack Obama appointee said the high court had allowed Trump to usurp congressional authority by firing the employees necessary to carry out democratically passed laws.
“When the executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the judiciary’s duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it,” Sotomayor wrote.
Sotomayor said her colleagues had misused the emergency docket and warned that allowing Trump to dismantle the Education Department would have grave consequences.
“The majority is either willfully blind to the implications of its ruling or naive, but either way the threat to our Constitution’s separation of powers is grave,” Sotomayor wrote.
Trump slashed the department’s staff by half in March, spurring a lawsuit from New York Attorney General Letitia James and 20 other states’ attorneys general. A federal judge blocked the cuts after James said the massive cuts would strip necessary services, resources and funding from students and families.
U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer said the preliminary injunction in this case “epitomize[d] many of the same errors in recent district-court injunctions usurping control of the federal workforce.”
Trump fired 1,378 employees from the department through reduction-in-force notices — a hallmark of the administration’s campaign against waste and fraud in the federal government.
New York stated that the massive workforce cuts rendered statutorily mandated functions of the department incapacitated. The state said this includes almost all of the staff who review the certification and recertification of higher education institutions for federal student aid.
“Petitioners have failed to explain how the Department can continue to perform timely certification reviews with no staff, and disruptions in federal certification have already interfered with the ability of public colleges and universities to meet enrollment goals and provide academic programs,” the states wrote.
The states argue that workforce cuts are already harming public education, with missed funding deadlines from the Department of Education disrupting state budgets for the upcoming school year. While they acknowledge the executive branch’s authority to impose staff reductions, they maintain that only Congress has the power to dismantle federal agencies or terminate their functions.
The administration argued that the states’ lawsuit wasn’t the appropriate vehicle to challenge employee terminations, asserting that under the Civil Service Reform Act, only the affected employees—not states, districts, or unions—can seek reinstatement. Trump said the statute prevented the lower court from issuing relief to all 1,400 employees.
The administration argued that the lower court injunction rested on the assumption that every terminated employee is necessary to perform the Education Department’s statutory functions.
“This court’s intervention is essential to halt such perverse results and the one-way litigation ratchet,” Sauer wrote. “Numerous courts in recent months and years have concluded that similar federal-employment suits are precluded.”
Democracy Forward, one of the advocacy organizations representing the states before the court, criticized the majority for not explaining its decision. Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, said the justices dealt a devastating blow to the promise of public education for all children.
“On its shadow docket, the court has yet again ruled to overturn the decision of two lower courts without argument,” Perryman said in a statement. “While this is disappointing, the Trump-Vance administration's actions to decimate a department established by Congress are still unconstitutional.”
While the justices ruling allows Trump to move forward with his plans to dismantle the department, the high court did not decide whether the administration’s actions were lawful.
“We will aggressively pursue every legal option as this case proceeds to ensure that all children in this country have access to the public education they deserve,” Perryman said.
The White House celebrated the ruling as a vindication of the administration’s arguments of Trump’s broad authority over the executive branch.
“The Supreme Court once again recognized what radical district court judges refuse to accept — President Trump, as head of the executive branch, has absolute constitutional authority to direct and manage its agencies and officers,” Liz Huston, a White House spokesperson, said. “President Trump will continue to move education back to the states, empower families, and put students first to improve academic outcomes across America.”
Congress created the Education Department so only Congress can abolish it, Sotomayor wrote. She said Trump’s executive order unquestionable exceeded Congress’ statutory limits on executive authority.
The liberal justices chastised their colleagues for allowing Trump to unlawfully seize power, especially considering the potential harm to education. Sotomayor said the high court’s decision would unleash untold harm by curtailing resources that Congress intended.
“The majority apparently deems it more important to free the government from paying employees it had no right to fire than to avert these very real harms while the litigation continues,” Sotomayor wrote. “Equity does not support such an inequitable result.”
Sotomayor said Trump had a responsibility to take care that the laws were faithfully executed, not set out to dismantle them.
“That basic rule undergirds our Constitution’s separation of powers,” Sotomayor wrote. “Yet today, the majority rewards clear defiance of that core principle with emergency relief. Because I cannot condone such abuse of our equitable authority, I respectfully dissent.”
New York clerk again refuses to enforce Texas judgment against doctor who provided abortion pills
A county clerk in New York on Monday again refused to file a more than $100,000 civil judgment from Texas against a doctor accused of prescribing abortion pills to a Dallas-area woman.
New York is among eight states with shield laws that protect providers from other states’ reach. Abortion opponents claim the laws violate a constitutional requirement that states respect the laws and legal judgments of other states.
Republican Texas State Attorney General Ken Paxton wants a New York court to enforce a civil decision from Texas against Dr. Margaret Carpenter, who practices north of New York City in Ulster County, for allegedly prescribing abortion medication via telemedicine.
Acting Ulster County Clerk Taylor Bruck in March refused an initial request to file the judgment, citing the New York law that shields abortion providers who serve patients in states with abortion bans. A second demand was made last week by the Texas attorney general's office, which said Bruck had a “statutory duty” to make the filing under New York civil practice law.
Bruck responded Monday that the rejection stands.
“While I’m not entirely sure how things work in Texas, here in New York, a rejection means the matter is closed,” Bruck wrote in a letter to Texas officials.
An email seeking comment was sent to Paxton's office.
The Texas case is one of two involving Carpenter that could end up testing shield laws.
Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul this year invoked the state's shield law in rejecting a request to extradite Carpenter to Louisiana, where the doctor was charged with prescribing abortion pills to a pregnant minor.
Hochul, responding to the latest request from Paxton's office, claimed he was attempting to dictate “the personal decisions of women across America.”
“Our response to their baseless claim is clear: no way in hell. New York won’t be bullied," she said in a prepared statement. "And I’ll never back down from this fight.”
Michael Hill, The Associated Press
A county clerk in New York on Monday again refused to file a more than $100,000 civil judgment from Texas against a doctor accused of prescribing abortion pills to a Dallas-area woman.
New York is among eight states with shield laws that protect providers from other states’ reach. Abortion opponents claim the laws violate a constitutional requirement that states respect the laws and legal judgments of other states.
Republican Texas State Attorney General Ken Paxton wants a New York court to enforce a civil decision from Texas against Dr. Margaret Carpenter, who practices north of New York City in Ulster County, for allegedly prescribing abortion medication via telemedicine.
Acting Ulster County Clerk Taylor Bruck in March refused an initial request to file the judgment, citing the New York law that shields abortion providers who serve patients in states with abortion bans. A second demand was made last week by the Texas attorney general's office, which said Bruck had a “statutory duty” to make the filing under New York civil practice law.
Bruck responded Monday that the rejection stands.
“While I’m not entirely sure how things work in Texas, here in New York, a rejection means the matter is closed,” Bruck wrote in a letter to Texas officials.
An email seeking comment was sent to Paxton's office.
The Texas case is one of two involving Carpenter that could end up testing shield laws.
Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul this year invoked the state's shield law in rejecting a request to extradite Carpenter to Louisiana, where the doctor was charged with prescribing abortion pills to a pregnant minor.
Hochul, responding to the latest request from Paxton's office, claimed he was attempting to dictate “the personal decisions of women across America.”
“Our response to their baseless claim is clear: no way in hell. New York won’t be bullied," she said in a prepared statement. "And I’ll never back down from this fight.”
Michael Hill, The Associated Press
The Justice Department has fired at least a dozen employees in recent weeks who at one time worked with former special counsel Jack Smith, ranging from a senior ethics official to low-level support staff, sources familiar with matter tell CNN.
The firings indicate that the Trump administration is still searching high and low for any person who had a hand in the special counsel’s work, which resulted in two federal indictments against Donald Trump. Both cases were dismissed once he was reelected.
Trump has long said that Smith’s investigations amounted to a political “witch hunt,” and vowed to go after anyone who led or helped in that effort. Several career prosecutors on the cases have already been fired.
Related article Trump defends Bondi amid MAGA fallout over her handling of Epstein investigation
Joseph Tirrell, who until last week was responsible for advising Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche directly on ethics matters, posted a short letter advising him of his dismissal that did not provide a rationale for the termination. Tirrell had been director of the departmental ethics office since July 2023, according to DOJ.
“Until Friday evening, I was the senior ethics attorney at the Department of Justice responsible for advising the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General directly on federal employee ethics,” Tirrell wrote on LinkedIn. “I was also responsible for the day-to-day operations of the ethics program across the Department.”
He added: “My public service is not over, and my career as a Federal civil servant is not finished. I took the oath at 18 as a Midshipman to ‘support and defend the Constitution of the United States’… That oath did not come with the caveat that I need only support the Constitution when it is easy or convenient.”
Former Department of Justice ethics official Joseph Tirrell posted a letter to LinkedIn advising him of his dismissal.
Joseph Tirrell/LinkedIn
The Justice Department and Tirrell have not responded to CNN’s requests for comment.
The firings indicate that the Trump administration is still searching high and low for any person who had a hand in the special counsel’s work, which resulted in two federal indictments against Donald Trump. Both cases were dismissed once he was reelected.
Trump has long said that Smith’s investigations amounted to a political “witch hunt,” and vowed to go after anyone who led or helped in that effort. Several career prosecutors on the cases have already been fired.
Related article Trump defends Bondi amid MAGA fallout over her handling of Epstein investigation
Joseph Tirrell, who until last week was responsible for advising Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche directly on ethics matters, posted a short letter advising him of his dismissal that did not provide a rationale for the termination. Tirrell had been director of the departmental ethics office since July 2023, according to DOJ.
“Until Friday evening, I was the senior ethics attorney at the Department of Justice responsible for advising the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General directly on federal employee ethics,” Tirrell wrote on LinkedIn. “I was also responsible for the day-to-day operations of the ethics program across the Department.”
He added: “My public service is not over, and my career as a Federal civil servant is not finished. I took the oath at 18 as a Midshipman to ‘support and defend the Constitution of the United States’… That oath did not come with the caveat that I need only support the Constitution when it is easy or convenient.”
Former Department of Justice ethics official Joseph Tirrell posted a letter to LinkedIn advising him of his dismissal.
Joseph Tirrell/LinkedIn
The Justice Department and Tirrell have not responded to CNN’s requests for comment.
Justice Department whistleblower Erez Reuveni sounded the alarm about those in the department around Kilmar Ábrego García's case involving the use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport people to a brutal prison in El Salvador.
In April, U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia Judge James Boasberg found "probable cause" to hold the Trump administration in criminal contempt. He said that there was enough evidence to indicate the Department of Homeland Security violated his order.
"The Court ultimately determines that the Government's actions on that day demonstrate a willful disregard for its Order, sufficient for the Court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt," Boasberg wrote in April.
Want more breaking political news? Click for the latest headlines at Raw Story.
In a Lawfare column, analyst Benjamin Wittes wrote that Reuveni's tale "fits an increasingly common trope."
That familiar image is "an official—generally career but occasionally political—perfectly willing to defend or implement Trump administration policy, is not willing to lie or cheat by way of doing so," wrote Wittes. That person then "runs afoul of the powers that be" and is shoved out.
While others at the Justice Department have gone up against the Trump appointees, Wittes said that Reuveni's case is different because he "brought a remarkable collection of receipts." First, there was the 27-page whistleblower complaint, and then, 150 pages of supporting documentation, including texts and emails.
Wittes noted that the documents from Reuveni have bearing on three cases: the Alien Enemies Act case, the case involving Ábrego García, and the case about whether Homeland Security can deport someone to a third-party country where the deportee has no connection and could face persecution.
While Reuveni specifically cited associate deputy attorney general Emil Bove, who is up for a federal appeals court judgeship, he also makes allegations about DOJ lawyer Drew Ensign. Reuveni specifically alleges that Ensign misled the court, and he could have cleared it up, but didn't.
Reuveni’s complaint accused DOJ lawyer Drew Ensign of misleading Boasberg. During a March 15 hearing, Ensign assured the court that none of the named plaintiffs would be removed while the restraining order was in effect, but admitted he did not know the status of the planes.
"If there are removal flights, the five would not be on them," claimed Ensign.
Reuveni contends that Ensign’s statements were false, as internal communications indicated DOJ officials were aware that deportations were imminent.
When Ensign couldn't answer the judge's questions, he paused the hearing to allow Ensign time to figure out the answers to his questions. They would return at 6 p.m. that day. But by 5:24 p.m., two minutes after they adjourned the court, "DOJ attorneys, including Ensign and Mr. Reuveni, received an email from plaintiffs’ attorney citing public reporting of flight information and stating that they had reason to believe that people were on planes for imminent deportation," the report said.
Ensign still appeared in court after that, doubling down on his claims.
What Reuveni didn't write about was Ensign's appearance before Boasberg two weeks later.
When pressed by the judge, Ensign claimed, again, he had no knowledge from his client about the flights, only from the plaintiffs’ submissions. However, Reuveni’s documentation suggests otherwise, alleging a pattern of obfuscation and lack of candor.
According to Reuveni’s account, this wasn't true either, Wittes argued.
Wittes described Reuveni’s experience as emblematic of a broader trend: career officials willing to defend administration policy, but not to lie or break the law, are pushed out. Wittes argues that the administration’s approach reflects a willingness to ignore legal constraints, demand total loyalty, and reject mechanisms of accountability.
Read the full column here.
'Remarkable' receipts prove DOJ repeatedly lied to judge: Legal expert
In April, U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia Judge James Boasberg found "probable cause" to hold the Trump administration in criminal contempt. He said that there was enough evidence to indicate the Department of Homeland Security violated his order.
"The Court ultimately determines that the Government's actions on that day demonstrate a willful disregard for its Order, sufficient for the Court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt," Boasberg wrote in April.
Want more breaking political news? Click for the latest headlines at Raw Story.
In a Lawfare column, analyst Benjamin Wittes wrote that Reuveni's tale "fits an increasingly common trope."
That familiar image is "an official—generally career but occasionally political—perfectly willing to defend or implement Trump administration policy, is not willing to lie or cheat by way of doing so," wrote Wittes. That person then "runs afoul of the powers that be" and is shoved out.
While others at the Justice Department have gone up against the Trump appointees, Wittes said that Reuveni's case is different because he "brought a remarkable collection of receipts." First, there was the 27-page whistleblower complaint, and then, 150 pages of supporting documentation, including texts and emails.
Wittes noted that the documents from Reuveni have bearing on three cases: the Alien Enemies Act case, the case involving Ábrego García, and the case about whether Homeland Security can deport someone to a third-party country where the deportee has no connection and could face persecution.
While Reuveni specifically cited associate deputy attorney general Emil Bove, who is up for a federal appeals court judgeship, he also makes allegations about DOJ lawyer Drew Ensign. Reuveni specifically alleges that Ensign misled the court, and he could have cleared it up, but didn't.
Reuveni’s complaint accused DOJ lawyer Drew Ensign of misleading Boasberg. During a March 15 hearing, Ensign assured the court that none of the named plaintiffs would be removed while the restraining order was in effect, but admitted he did not know the status of the planes.
"If there are removal flights, the five would not be on them," claimed Ensign.
Reuveni contends that Ensign’s statements were false, as internal communications indicated DOJ officials were aware that deportations were imminent.
When Ensign couldn't answer the judge's questions, he paused the hearing to allow Ensign time to figure out the answers to his questions. They would return at 6 p.m. that day. But by 5:24 p.m., two minutes after they adjourned the court, "DOJ attorneys, including Ensign and Mr. Reuveni, received an email from plaintiffs’ attorney citing public reporting of flight information and stating that they had reason to believe that people were on planes for imminent deportation," the report said.
Ensign still appeared in court after that, doubling down on his claims.
What Reuveni didn't write about was Ensign's appearance before Boasberg two weeks later.
When pressed by the judge, Ensign claimed, again, he had no knowledge from his client about the flights, only from the plaintiffs’ submissions. However, Reuveni’s documentation suggests otherwise, alleging a pattern of obfuscation and lack of candor.
According to Reuveni’s account, this wasn't true either, Wittes argued.
Wittes described Reuveni’s experience as emblematic of a broader trend: career officials willing to defend administration policy, but not to lie or break the law, are pushed out. Wittes argues that the administration’s approach reflects a willingness to ignore legal constraints, demand total loyalty, and reject mechanisms of accountability.
Read the full column here.
'Remarkable' receipts prove DOJ repeatedly lied to judge: Legal expert
A federal judge of the United States District Court in Massachusetts has blocked President Donald Trump‘s executive order that aimed to dramatically change how elections are conducted nationwide, specifically for federal elections. The ruling stated that the order oversteps presidential authority and infringes upon states’ constitutional powers, Knewz.com has learned.
Trump’s Executive Order Attempted to Overhaul Elections
The executive order, signed by President Trump on March 25, sought to overhaul elections in the U.S. BY: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
The executive order, signed by President Trump on March 25, sought to require documentary proof of citizenship for all voters in federal elections, accept only mail-in ballots received by Election Day, as opposed to those postmarked by Election Day but received later, and tie federal election funding to states’ compliance with these new rules. The executive order was immediately challenged by a coalition of Democratic state attorneys general, who argued the directive was unconstitutional. According to reports, the executive order is the culmination of President Trump’s longstanding complaints about the way elections are conducted. Following his win in 2016, Trump claimed that his popular vote total would have been much higher if not for “millions of people who voted illegally.” After losing to President Joe Biden in 2020, the president made “false claims of widespread voter fraud and manipulation of voting machines,” per reports.
Judge Casper’s Ruling Regarding Trump’s Executive Order
Judge Denise J. Casper wrote that “the Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections.” BY: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
Judge Denise J. Casper of the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts wrote in her ruling that “the Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections.” She also noted that while U.S. citizenship is indeed a legal requirement to vote in federal elections — and must be attested to in voter registration forms — the Constitution grants states, not the president, the authority to regulate elections. That authority is outlined in Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution, which states that the “Times, Places and Manner” of elections are to be set by states, with Congress permitted to make laws to regulate them, not the executive branch, according to reports. Casper also cited arguments made by the states that the requirements would “burden the States with significant efforts and substantial costs” to update procedures.
White House Defends Executive Order
The White House defended the executive order as “standing up for free, fair and honest elections.” BY: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
The White House defended the executive order as “standing up for free, fair and honest elections” and called proof of citizenship a “commonsense” requirement. Justice Department attorney Bridget O’Hickey argued that the order aimed to streamline voting rules and reduce what she described as a “patchwork” of conflicting state laws. O’Hickey also suggested that ballots received after Election Day could be manipulated based on early election returns, a claim that election experts widely dismiss as speculative.
Legal Setback for Trump’s Executive Order
The lawsuit against Trump’s executive order was brought by attorneys general from several Democratic-led states. BY: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
The lawsuit against Trump’s executive order was brought by attorneys general from several Democratic-led states, including California and New York. “Free and fair elections are the foundation of this nation, and no president has the power to steal that right from the American people,” New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement. Currently, 18 states and Puerto Rico count mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day, as long as they are postmarked by that date. Election officials in mail-dependent states like Oregon and Washington had filed separate lawsuits against the executive order, stating it could disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters. Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs noted that more than 300,000 ballots arrived after Election Day during the 2024 election alone. Judge Casper, whose ruling went in favor of the states filing the lawsuit, said that the states had a strong likelihood of succeeding in their legal challenge.
Judge Blocks Trump's Attempt to Overhaul Elections
Trump’s Executive Order Attempted to Overhaul Elections
The executive order, signed by President Trump on March 25, sought to overhaul elections in the U.S. BY: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
The executive order, signed by President Trump on March 25, sought to require documentary proof of citizenship for all voters in federal elections, accept only mail-in ballots received by Election Day, as opposed to those postmarked by Election Day but received later, and tie federal election funding to states’ compliance with these new rules. The executive order was immediately challenged by a coalition of Democratic state attorneys general, who argued the directive was unconstitutional. According to reports, the executive order is the culmination of President Trump’s longstanding complaints about the way elections are conducted. Following his win in 2016, Trump claimed that his popular vote total would have been much higher if not for “millions of people who voted illegally.” After losing to President Joe Biden in 2020, the president made “false claims of widespread voter fraud and manipulation of voting machines,” per reports.
Judge Casper’s Ruling Regarding Trump’s Executive Order
Judge Denise J. Casper wrote that “the Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections.” BY: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
Judge Denise J. Casper of the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts wrote in her ruling that “the Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections.” She also noted that while U.S. citizenship is indeed a legal requirement to vote in federal elections — and must be attested to in voter registration forms — the Constitution grants states, not the president, the authority to regulate elections. That authority is outlined in Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution, which states that the “Times, Places and Manner” of elections are to be set by states, with Congress permitted to make laws to regulate them, not the executive branch, according to reports. Casper also cited arguments made by the states that the requirements would “burden the States with significant efforts and substantial costs” to update procedures.
White House Defends Executive Order
The White House defended the executive order as “standing up for free, fair and honest elections.” BY: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
The White House defended the executive order as “standing up for free, fair and honest elections” and called proof of citizenship a “commonsense” requirement. Justice Department attorney Bridget O’Hickey argued that the order aimed to streamline voting rules and reduce what she described as a “patchwork” of conflicting state laws. O’Hickey also suggested that ballots received after Election Day could be manipulated based on early election returns, a claim that election experts widely dismiss as speculative.
Legal Setback for Trump’s Executive Order
The lawsuit against Trump’s executive order was brought by attorneys general from several Democratic-led states. BY: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
The lawsuit against Trump’s executive order was brought by attorneys general from several Democratic-led states, including California and New York. “Free and fair elections are the foundation of this nation, and no president has the power to steal that right from the American people,” New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement. Currently, 18 states and Puerto Rico count mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day, as long as they are postmarked by that date. Election officials in mail-dependent states like Oregon and Washington had filed separate lawsuits against the executive order, stating it could disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters. Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs noted that more than 300,000 ballots arrived after Election Day during the 2024 election alone. Judge Casper, whose ruling went in favor of the states filing the lawsuit, said that the states had a strong likelihood of succeeding in their legal challenge.
Judge Blocks Trump's Attempt to Overhaul Elections
I would like to see that to escalate to rotten tomatoes and then rocks.
Meaning.........................you are gone! ( with severance package and full pension )
Its a good point. That ground was laid decades ago and its been a steady decline by both parties. True with both the dems and the GOP. Biden took it to the extreme by aiding genocide, after that there is no arguing that the dems follow rules based governance.
We've known that american politicians don't respect the will of voters, they only act on the will of those with money.
But they used to at least pretend they were upholding the law and doing it for the people.
Study: Politicians listen to rich people, not you
Vox is a general interest news site for the 21st century. Its mission: to help everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help shape it. In text, video and audio, our reporters explain politics, policy, world affairs, technology, culture, science, the climate crisis, money...
Is that supposed to be clever?
Is trolling the way you try to make yourself feel superior?
How is Jan. 20 more significant than Dec. 5 in your opinion?
