Top Stories Daily Listen Now
RawStory
RawStory

All posts tagged "constitution"

'Outcome feels preordained': Supreme Court appears ready to give Trump new 'immense' power

The Supreme Court was expected to hand President Donald Trump more new powers in a case scheduled to begin Monday.

The conservative-leaning high court has planned to hear Trump v. Slaughter, "a case whose outcome feels preordained," according to a Slate report published Thursday.

"The six-justice supermajority is almost certain to fulfill a decadeslong conservative goal to shift an immense amount of power from Congress to President Donald Trump," Slate reported.

Conservative lawyers have planned to argue that the Constitution grants the president total control over the executive branch and the "the freedom to fire federal officials who may impose a modest, independent check on the president’s agenda. Proponents of this argument claim that it is rooted in the original, historical understanding of executive power, as confirmed by centuries of tradition."

Legal historians disagree. They "have refuted the rotten moorings of this bogus theory with devastating precision" and debunked this interpretation of the Constitution.

"And yet there is no real question that the Supreme Court’s Republican-appointed justices will endorse it anyway in Slaughter, handing Trump sweeping new authority to abuse his office in direct violation of federal law. This near-inevitable ruling confirms the most stinging critique of originalism: It allows judges to align constitutional meaning with the Republican Party’s preferences, disregarding evidence that contradicts their desired outcome," according to Slate.

The repercussions could have lasting consequences.

"The result in Slaughter will inflict profound damage on the separation of powers, democracy, and individual rights, all on the basis of a legal urban legend. This fraudulent originalism permits an easily discredited myth to swallow the truth—and with it, yet another legal restraint on Trump’s pursuit of unchecked control over the machinery of government," Slate reported.

The conservative legal movement has long championed the "unitary executive" theory, which has argued for expansive presidential power and contends that the president should have near-total control over the executive branch, effectively limiting congressional and judicial oversight. This theory seeks to dramatically increase executive branch authority by arguing that the president's constitutional role as head of the executive branch means all executive power should be centralized under direct presidential control.

If this psychotic Trump outrage isn't impeachable, nothing is

Donald Trump just called for the execution of American veterans — all of them also elected members of Congress — because they reminded our active duty soldiers that it’s a violation of both American and international law to commit war crimes.

If that’s not impeachable, what is?

This is his most dangerous and insane escalation yet, because it crosses a bright red line the Founders themselves warned about: a president openly demanding the execution of members of Congress for telling U.S. service members to obey the law.

And the horror of it isn’t subtle. It’s not, like in the days of Nixon and Reagan, even coded. It’s not even wink-and-nod stochastic terrorism.

This is the President of the United States calling for hanging lawmakers — by name — for the “crime” of reminding military personnel that their oath is to the Constitution, not to him.

That is the precise scenario the Founders feared when they warned that a would-be tyrant could try to transform the military from defenders of the republic into enforcers of a single man’s will.

What these senators and representatives said in their video is not controversial, not partisan, and not new. It’s bedrock American law. It’s the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It’s every ethics class, every commissioning oath, every baseline principle of civilian-controlled government in a constitutional republic.

Trump’s reaction — psychotic, paranoid, and dripping with bloodlust — makes one thing painfully clear: he’s terrified of the military remembering who they actually work for.

It also suggests an ominous future Trump may have planned where he turns our military against you and me.

Or uses it against a foreign nation so he can wiggle out of the growing questions about his 1990s teenage modeling agency, his Miss Teen USA pageant, and their possible connections to Jeffrey Epstein and child sex trafficking.

The lawmakers who made that video are, to a person, military and combat veterans or intelligence professionals who’ve literally risked their lives for this country.

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) was shot at, launched into space, and flew combat missions over Iraq. Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA) served in the Air Force. Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO) was an Army Ranger. Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-PA) is a Navy vet. Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) spent years as a CIA analyst overseeing Iraq policy. These aren’t armchair patriots: they’re the real thing.

So when Trump — who faked bone spurs to dodge Vietnam — calls for them to be executed, it tells you something profound: he wouldn’t be flipping out like this unless he intends to give orders like that.

Everything about this situation is a rerun of January 6th — for which he’s already been impeached — only with the stakes ratcheted up.

Trump has already learned that violent language produces violent followers. He watched it happen in real time. He saw his crowd beat police officers bloody, hunt for Mike Pence, and smash their way through the Capitol while chanting about hanging elected officials.

As I mentioned about the attacks on Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), he knows his movement is filled with men eager to “carry out the punishment” for him. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) offers a warning — that Trump is lighting a match in a country soaked in gasoline — that isn’t metaphor. It’s a sober assessment grounded in hard experience.

And now Trump is testing the waters again, seeing how far he can go, how hard he can push, before America pushes back.

Consider what these lawmakers actually said in their video: follow lawful orders, refuse unlawful ones, and remember your oath is to the Constitution. That’s the opposite of sedition. It’s literally the definition of military ethics in a democratic society, right out of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, American law, international law, and even the Nuremberg trials

Fox’s commentator Andy McCarthy — hardly a liberal — made this clear:

“There is no insurrection or sedition without the use of force. Disobeying a lawful order is insubordination, not insurrection or sedition. Disobeying an unlawful order is required.”

Veterans and members of Congress telling soldiers to obey the law? That’s the American system working.

But Trump immediately interpreted it as a threat to himself and his agenda. Not to our country. Not to political or military norms. To him personally.

That should reveal to every American with half a brain who this man really is and what his plans really are.

The cries of “HANG THEM!” and “punishable by DEATH!” aren’t policy positions. They’re the words of an out-of-control authoritarian, a wannabe dictator, a man intent on destroying the rule of law and the American republic that’s been based on it for over two centuries.

They’re the gut-level reactions of a man who thinks loyalty should flow upward to his person, not outward to the nation.

And it’s not a one-off. This is a Trump pattern that necessitates impeachment.

  • This is the same Trump who demanded the execution of Gen. Mark Milley.
  • The same Trump who encouraged chants of “Hang Mike Pence.”
  • The same Trump whose follower mailed pipe bombs to Democratic leaders.
  • The same Trump who says generals should be shot, newspapers and TV networks shut down, and political opponents imprisoned.
  • Who calls soldiers who died in battle “suckers” and “losers.”

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller — who also avoided military service, like every man in the Trump family — shrieking that veterans should “resign in disgrace” for stating U.S. law is the purest illustration of an authoritarian mindset straight out of 1930s Germany: loyalty is owed to the leader, he suggests, not to the Constitution. And the moment someone asserts otherwise, they’re a traitor.

And Fox “News” giving Miller a platform to do it, without even trying to push back or defend American values of the role of law, is unspeakable.

Which brings us to a remarkable admission from Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY): Republicans are “afraid” to cross Trump. They’re terrified of Trump’s base, the Confederate flag-waivers, the well-armed Bros. Terrified, because Trump has conditioned those men (virtually all of the violence has come from right wing men) to see critique or embrace of the rule of law as betrayal, and betrayal as punishable.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) is right: you can’t negotiate with a party whose operating principle is “wait to see what Trump wants.”

As Murphy noted yesterday in response to Trump’s call to kill Democratic lawmakers:

“If you’re a person of influence in this country and you haven’t picked a side, maybe now would be the time to pick a fucking side.”

We now have a major political party that openly accepts their president calling for the execution of lawmakers who simply restate the Constitution. And a White House spokeswoman who pathetically backs him up.

Trump isn’t just attacking political rivals: he’s asserting that the American military’s loyalty belongs to him personally, and that those who contradict him should be killed. That is the exact formula the Founders designed the Constitution to prevent.

That’s not normal political dysfunction. That is a republic confronting its own death-throes.

The heartening part — the only heartening part — is the response from the lawmakers themselves.

These elected officials understand the stakes. They know the oaths they took aren’t merely symbolic.

They know that stopping this modern-day rightwing fascism depends on We the People standing up, speaking out, and refusing to be intimidated while we support members of our military — from the most senior levels to the lowest privates — in their refusing to follow illegal orders.

Trump wants a military that obeys him, not the rule of law. That’s why he’s screaming for the deaths of these congressional veterans. It’s also why Congress must impeach him now.

These veterans in Congress reminded the members of our military that their duty is the exact opposite of Trump’s demand for unthinking, unquestioning fealty to illegal orders.

No democracy survives that.

'Fully MAGA now': Latest case has experts finally writing off 'arrogant' Supreme Court

When law professor Seth Chandler asked artificial intelligence to predict how the Supreme Court would rule in Trump v. CASA this summer, he won a $1 bet with a colleague. The AI-generated draft opinion proved “exactly right” about the 6-3 conservative majority ruling that limited universal injunctions in response to President Donald Trump's executive order curtailing birthright citizenship.

That might not seem too surprising — the court to which Trump appointed three justices has generally proved favorable to the president’s draconian policies, after all. Nonetheless, when the court heard oral arguments in Louisiana v. Callais last week, Chandler, who specializes in constitutional law and computer science at the University of Houston, turned to AI again.

He asked Google Gemini to draft an opinion for the redistricting case. Once again, the AI assistant predicted a 6-3 ruling, the conservatives sticking together.

The 20-page fake draft opinion anticipates the Court will affirm a district court’s ruling that a Louisiana congressional map redrawn in 2024 to create a second Black-majority district is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

The map was redrawn because a federal court determined in 2022 that a new congressional map based on the 2020 census was likely in violation of Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination against voters.

The 2020 map only had one of six Louisiana districts representing a majority of Black voters, despite one-third of the state’s population being Black.

In other words, the plaintiff in Louisiana v. Callais claims that drawing maps to combat racism and ensure Black representation is itself a racist act.

The actual Supreme Court opinion might not come for months, but based on oral arguments in Louisiana v. Callais, experts predict further weakening of the Voting Rights Act.

“I'm not sure they'll say the whole thing's unconstitutional, but they will render it a less powerful force,” Chandler said.

“If I were the NAACP, I would not be happy with the way that argument went.”

‘Fist on the scale’

Chief Justice John Roberts “launched his legal career in attacking Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act Congress,” said Lisa Graves, chief counsel for nominations with the Senate Judiciary Committee from 2002 to 2005, who also predicted a weakening of the landmark civil rights law.

Graves said it was “extraordinary to see 
 the Roberts Court putting its fist on the scale of justice in this way and also taking up this assault on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act as Donald Trump, for months now, has been demanding that state legislatures rig their maps to protect him from having a Democratic majority in Congress that could begin to hold him accountable for his transgressions of the Constitution.”

Lisa Graves Lisa Graves (provided photo)

In her new book, “Without Precedent: How Chief Justice Roberts and His Accomplices Rewrote the Constitution and Dismantled Our Rights,” Graves details how Roberts spent “hundreds of hours trying to block” Section 2 while working for the Reagan administration.

Graves writes that Roberts was intensely questioned about his writings on the Voting Rights Act during his 2005 confirmation hearing. The late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) said he was “deeply troubled” by Roberts’ “mean-spirited view” of Section 2.

Now, through Louisiana v. Callais, Roberts and his court are finally “poised to constrict the ability of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to limit disparate racial impact,” Graves writes.

She told Raw Story: “It does feel like the zeitgeist has caught up because more and more people are going ‘Whoa,’ so I guess it is an ‘I told you so,’ regretfully.”

‘Supremely arrogant’

Louisiana v. Callais stands to be highly influential, as states engage in off-cycle redistricting efforts ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Typically, redistricting happens once a decade.

Trump told Texas Republicans to redraw congressional maps this summer, in an attempt to give Republicans five more House seats and solidify control. He’s since encouraged other red states such as Missouri, North Carolina and Indiana to gerrymander to boost the GOP.

If the Supreme Court does limit Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, it will most likely “give the green light to yet further partisan gerrymandering, which in many cases will hurt minorities,” Chandler said.

Seth Chandler Seth Chandler (Photo courtesy of the University of Houston Law Center)

With Roberts leading the way, Graves said the court was “determined to mow down those limitations on Donald Trump” as seen in Trump v. United States, the 2024 case that granted him "unprecedented immunity from criminal prosecution.”

“I think this court is fully a MAGA court now,” Graves said.

“This Roberts court is supremely arrogant in its determination to roll back the clock on not just recent 21st-century precedents, but to roll back the clock to before the New Deal, to the Robber Baron era.”

Lindsey Cormack, associate professor of political science at Stevens Institute of Technology in New Jersey, said partisanship was “undeniable” in the judicial branch, despite a traditional expectation of impartiality.

“It's sort of the most political branch in the sense that the only way you can be on the courts is if you're appointed by an elected official, and the only way you're confirmed is if the rest of the elected officials at the federal level say, ‘Yeah, you can play here,” Cormack said.

“It's kind of a nice fiction that we tell ourselves to be like they're not partisan, but we do know that judges have political opinions. Someone put them in office, and someone voted for them, and someone voted against them.”

‘Opportunity to change’

Passed under Lyndon B. Johnson in the civil rights era, the Voting Rights Act is “one of the most important pieces of legislation that was ever written and enacted,” Graves said.

Weakening the law “would be a disaster for America,” she added.

“It would also pave the way for white-dominated, Republican-controlled legislatures in the South to further dilute Black votes in America in ways that would aid Trump's quest to secure an illegitimate majority in the House.”

Cormack said the court was considering the Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v. Callais in “a very different way than how we've ever seen it in the past.”

She argued that the ruling could give an opportunity to “see things differently.”

“We know that Louisiana has a history of problematic discrimination — and that's not really controversial to say in the sense that they had poll taxes and literacy tests and white primaries and grandfather clauses until the very last time that they could, which was in 1965 — but we can't make it impossible for a state to outrun this sort of history,” Cormack said.

“We have to give states the opportunity to change 
 it's not fair to always hold the Confederate South to ‘They're always going to be problematic.’”

Lindsey Cormack Lindsey Cormack (provided photo)

But Cormack acknowledged a ruling affirming the district court’s decision in the case “probably means that it's going to be very hard to bring a racially motivated claim” in the future.

Congress could pass new legislation reaffirming racial discrimination protections in the Voting Rights Act, Cormack said, but that’s unlikely given GOP control.

“It seems like the tolerance for 
 race-based anything is going by the wayside, at least by the majority party that controls the House and Senate right now, so it'll be really hard to see anything that happens in the next year to sort of change this.

“You get a different Congress, you maybe get a different outcome, but we're a ways off from that.”

Shock as parts of Constitution disappear from government site: 'Almost didn't believe it'

The Library of Congress confirmed that some portions of the U.S. Constitution were removed from the official government website.

Drop Site reported Wednesday morning that Sections 9 and 10 of Article I, which focuses on limiting the power of the legislative branch, were taken down without explanation from the official U.S. Constitution website.

"These sections ban ex post facto laws, bills of attainder, and unauthorized state treaties — core constitutional safeguards," Drop Site noted.

The news outlet posted links to the official government website and an archived version to show the discrepancy, but the Library of Congress provided an update about a half hour later.

"It has been brought to our attention that some sections of Article 1 are missing from the Constitution Annotated website," stated the library's official X account. "We’ve learned that this is due to a coding error. We have been working to correct this and expect it to be resolved soon."

The missing sections prompted some mordant jokes about the state of constitutional rights.

"It's good to know that it's this easy to change the Constitution," said podcaster Will Menaker.

"I almost didn't believe it," posted law professor Anthony Michael Kreis. "Do I have to teach Art. I Sec. 9 and Sec. 10 now now that they're removed from the congressional website?"

Trump can spit on our founders' graves — but he can't run from Lincoln's truth

We’re now living in an early-stage police state.

After Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) was assaulted for saying, “I’m Sen. Alex Padilla and I have a question for the Secretary,” Department of Homeland Security Secretary and notorious puppy murderer Kristi Noem went on Fox “News” and lied to the American people, saying that he hadn’t identified himself, she didn’t know who he was, and that he was “lunging into the room.”

The violence inflicted on Padilla was the point. And it’s being celebrated in real time by MAGA, Fox, and the Trump administration.

After all, dictators can’t be dictators without first cowing the people, terrifying even elected officials, and asserting their absolute and unlimited power to use violence anywhere, any time, and under any circumstances they choose.

“We are not going away,” Noem said in a snarling comment that provoked the question from Padilla. “We are staying here to liberate this city from the socialist and the burdensome leadership that this governor [Gavin Newsom] and that this mayor [Karen Bass] have placed on this country.”

For the record, the job of the federal government is not to “liberate“ cities from the leaders they have elected. That’s what Putin did when he forced all the elected governors of the Russian states (oblasts) to resign and replaced them with men he appointed. Even suggesting it is deeply and profoundly un-American.

This is the Trump administration once again nakedly asserting that they are above the law, are committed to acting without ethical or moral restraint, and that they have no obligation to honor the constitutionally defined oversight role of members of Congress. That they are intent on running a dictatorship here in America, not a democratic republic.

They have arrested and are prosecuting a member of the House of Representatives who was simply doing her job at an immigration detention center in New Jersey. They are ignoring explicit orders by federal judges and the Supreme Court. They are literally disappearing people, including American citizens, off the streets of our cities. And now they’ve taken a United States senator to the ground.

This is not what the people who fought and died to create and sustain this country had in mind.

The genius of the Founders was Montesquieu’s idea of three branches of government with checks on each other’s power. It’s essential to democracy.

Trump (2nd branch) has been trashing judges (3rd branch) and has now violently attacked a congresswoman and a US senator (1st branch). He’s spitting on the graves of the Framers of our Constitution.

And to emphasize their ignoring the Constitution and its requirement that both Congress and the courts can exercise oversight of the president, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said:

“The courts should have no role here. There is a troubling and dangerous trend of unelected judges inserting themselves into the presidential decision-making process.”

Similarly, they refuse to respect the right of American citizens to protest that’s laid out in the First Amendment, “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Trump came right out and said that if anybody in Washington, DC tries to protest his birthday parade on Saturday, he will meet them with violence:

“For those people that want to protest, they’re going to be met with very big force. Very big force!”

That wasn’t a threat against vandals or even people who might try to disrupt Dear Leader’s birthday celebration: it was a threat against people who may “protest.”

This echoes the behavior of Hitler’s goons in the early 1930s as they set out to violently intimidate anybody — particularly members of Parliament — who may challenge him. Or Commissioner Bull Connor as he bloodied protesters in Birmingham in the 1950s and 1960s.

Under Trump and Noem, federal agents have been given carte blanche to use violence against non-white people (it’s probably no coincidence that Sen. Padilla is a brown-skinned son of Mexican immigrants), including kidnapping them in broad daylight and sending them to foreign concentration camps with no access to due process whatsoever.

Noem could easily have taken the senator’s question, or just said, “I’m happy to meet with you after this press conference.“ Instead, she chose escalation and violence, which is why Democrats are today calling on her to resign.

Now, in response to the violence Noem and the FBI directed against a US senator, the professional propagandists at Fox “News” are peddling rationalizations and repeating Noem’s lie that she didn’t know who Padilla was. FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino issued a statement “thanking” the men who beat Padilla to the ground. House Speaker Mike Johnson implied Padilla was trying to inflict violence on Noem and called for him to be censured by the Senate.

It appears that Republicans are circling the wagons, defending the assault on Padilla, Trump’s illegal infliction of armed troops on the streets of Los Angeles over the objections of the governor and mayor, and his and Noem’s efforts to stir up trouble in California that they can then exploit Reichstag Fire-style.

Are there any John McCain Republicans left? Any patriots who revere the Constitution and respect the rule of law? Any who are willing to call out Trump’s brutal dictator-inspired corruption and excesses?

The question is an urgent one, because right now the only people who can stop America’s descent into tyranny are the Republicans in the House and Senate. If just a small handful grow a spine, Trump could be stopped in his tracks.

Will it happen? History suggests that massive public opinion holds the answer to that question. It ended, for example, both the presidency of Richard Nixon and the Vietnam War.

As Abraham Lincoln famously said in his debate with Stephen Douglas:

“In this age, in this country, public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail; against it, nothing can succeed. Whoever molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces judicial decisions.”

Saturday will be this era’s most visible expression of public opinion. Stay tuned and stay peacefully active.

'Saying quiet part out loud': Trump aide's barely hidden threat scares analyst

Trump aide Stephen Miller has issued a direct threat to the courts that they need to fall in line with the administration's extreme deportation policies — or else, according to an article in Slate.

Miller's warning revolved around habeas corpus, a person's constitutional right to have their detention by authorities justified before a judge. In cases like the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was shipped off to an El Salvador prison without a court hearing, habeas corpus was clearly ignored, the article argued.

"In recent weeks, Trump officials have begun suggesting that they can simply revoke habeas corpus," wrote reporter Shirin Ali. "Deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller told reporters that 'the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion. So I would say that’s an option we’re actively looking at.'"

ALSO READ: FBI silent as far-right podcaster demands Trump execution and Kash Patel torture

Miller continued, saying that "whether the Trump administration tries to suspend habeas corpus or not depends on 'whether the courts do the right thing or not."

"He was basically saying the quiet part out loud: that it’s a threat from the executive branch to twist the arm of the judiciary," Ali wrote.

Habeas corpus can be suspended in extreme cases, but only by Congress, "not the president, despite what the Trump administration has said," Ali wrote.

She quoted Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck saying, "The reality is that the Trump administration is likely hoping that 'no one actually pays close attention to the text' of the Constitution 'because it’s not just that we’re not actually being invaded by anyone right now, it’s that even the suspension clause does not authorize suspensions by the president, ever.'”

Read the Slate article here.

Trump's attack dog just killed her career

The Attorney General of the United States is considered the nation's top lawyer. As head of the Department of Justice, Pam Bondi leads the nation's largest law office. No federal precedent, and nothing in her oath of office, exempts her from the code of ethics, federal pleading rules, or the rule of law all attorneys swear to uphold.

Lawyers who work for the government have a duty to seek justice, whether facts lead to acquittal or conviction. For that reason, they are expected to avoid public statements displaying partiality because such statements undermine public trust in the legal system. The American Bar Association directs in Rule 3.6 that:

“A lawyer who is participating
 in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial (outside the court) statement that 
 will be disseminated (publicly) and have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing (a case.)”

In other words, try your case in court, not on TV. Only supported facts of evidence are allowed in a court room; demagoguery, and assertions of opinion unsupported by admissible evidence, are not allowed. That is why judges have frequently admonished Trump attorneys that statements to the press are not evidence.

Despite the clarity of the ABA rule, Bondi has consistently argued pending cases in the media, particularly Fox News, where she falsely asserts that it is up to Trump to decide what the law requires. Every first-year law student is taught that the judicial branch, not the executive, decides what the law is.

Intentionally misconstrued orders

In April, the U.S. Supreme Court directed the Trump administration to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man who was deported to El Salvador without constitutionally required process. Under Bondi’s direction, DOJ lawyers argued that they don’t understand plain English, spinning the term “facilitate” to mean “removing any domestic obstacles that would otherwise impede the alien’s ability to return here.”

The word “domestic” does not appear anywhere in SCOTUS’ order to the government “to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador.”

Rather than respect the plain language of the order, Bondi’s strategy is to play games to either render the ruling null due to delay or worse, to challenge the court’s authority. As an example of the latter, the Justice Department filed an emergency motion to stay the Abrego Garcia order from U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, aggressively challenging federal courts’ authority even after the Supreme Court ruled, pleading that, “The federal courts do not have the authority to press-gang the President or his agents into taking any particular act of diplomacy.”

The appellate court was appropriately triggered. Without waiting for plaintiffs’ response, the Fourth Circuit court of appeals issued a sharp rebuke, written by a Reagan appointee, describing the US strategy as “shocking:”

“The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order. Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done.

This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.”

Abuse of pleading rules

Federal pleading rules require attorneys to certify that what they assert is warranted by existing law or a reasonable argument for modifying the law, and that their factual contentions have evidentiary support. Rule 11 states that a court may impose sanctions on any attorney responsible for violating the pleading rule, including supervising attorneys.

As far as I can discern from public record, none of the facts in the El Salvador deportations have been pled with evidentiary support; Donald Trump’s opinion that someone is a violent gang member is not evidence. This means Bondi has either allowed — or directed — attorneys under her supervision to file unsupported pleadings. That a conservative judge called the latest motion “shocking” also sets it outside the rule.

Not only is Bondi authorizing her attorneys to file unsupported pleadings, she has punished staff for making accurate statements to the court. In April, she directed the dismissal of Erez Reuveni, a career lawyer, for acknowledging to the court that Abrego Garcia had been deported to El Salvador in error. Shortly thereafter, a 10-year veteran of the same unit resigned, saying he could not “with clean conscience” defend the department’s actions under Bondi, claiming they ran counter to the law, the Constitution and “basic principles of fairness and humanity.”

Trump’s personal law firm

Bondi’s latest transgression has not yet made it to court, but it likely will. Last week, Bondi declared that, under the Foreign Emoluments Clause, Trump can legally accept a “flying palace 747 jumbo jet” as a gift from Qatar, a country that has directly funded Hamas terrorism.

Qatar's financial and political ties to Hamas have long been known. In a memorandum, Bondi concluded that the gift was “legally permissible,” apparently reasoning that because the gift is not officially conditioned on any official act, it does not constitute bribery.

No such limiting language appears in the Constitution — Bondi just put it there. Her analysis also concluded that the gift complies with the law because the plane is not being given to an individual, but rather to the United States Air Force and, eventually, to the presidential library foundation, where Trump will then make personal use of it. Pity the DOJ lawyer flunky Bondi will force to sign that bad faith legal jujitsu when it gets before a judge.

The facts are that when Trump leaves office, the 747 would be transferred to the Trump Presidential Library. This is plainly a $400 million gift from a foreign government to Trump himself, perhaps meant as a “tip” following Trump’s private $5.5 billion golf course deal with Dar Global and Qatari Diar, a company created from Qatar's sovereign wealth fund in 2005. It's painfully obvious to anyone outside the Fox News bubble that Trump, who has not divested from his private ventures, is using the Oval Office to enrich himself, aided by unethical counsel.

Follow the dirty money

Former federal prosecutor Paul Rosenzweig observed that Bondi’s actions have radically transformed and politicized the DOJ, transmuting it “into Trump’s personal law firm,” which is “a rejection of the founding principle of the rule of law.”

Although four years feels interminable, Trump is not a permanent fixture, and he will be out of office while Bondi still needs her law license. Bondi seems not to care, suggesting she has no intention of practicing law after Trump’s departure. Perhaps she will return to lobbying, where she earned over $100,000 a month lobbying for Qatar. (Conflict of interest, anyone?)

As I see it, Bondi has already met the threshold of bad faith for disbarment. An attorney who trashes the rule of law must know that eventually she will be barred from practicing it.

Sabrina Haake is a columnist and 25 year litigator specializing in 1st and 14th Amendment defense. Her Substack, The Haake Take, is free.

Lying Trump told 30K whoppers in his first term. This time we need to believe him

I am seeing a lot of nonsense being reported about the America-attacking Donald Trump alleging last weekend he will not seek a third term in office ... as if anything that comes out of his dirty mouth is at all credible.

Have we learned nothing yet?

Listen to me, good people: Unless he has the decency to die first, America’s First Felon has no intention of leaving the White House in 2028.

What we do between now and then in revolt of this revolting man will tell the tale.

After 10 years of carpet-bombing the truth, can everybody at least understand that we can never trust a single word that comes out of the dirty mouth of the woman-abusing narcissist, who according to one count told an astonishing 30,573 lies and mistruths during his first chaotic presidency when hundreds of thousands of Americans needlessly died because of his RFK Jr.-like response to a once-in-a-century killer pandemic?

We need only rely on his past despicable actions to get at his true future intent, because whatever this racist lowlife — who is actively trying to disappear people of color and their history from our government websites — is saying and what he has actually done is far, far worse.

We know by his actions that after losing the 2020 election by more than seven million votes to Joe Biden, Trump began making it crystal clear to everyone that he had no intention of stepping down and honoring the vote of the people.

Thus, the Big Lie was hatched.

Rather than gracefully concede his loss, as Hillary Clinton had done four years earlier after winning close to three million votes MORE than him, Trump decided to go to war against America.

We know by his revolting actions, that after losing scores of legal challenges, and publicly threatening and shaking down poll workers and election officials, Trump finally summoned the worst people in America, his lawless base, to Washington in an attempt to violently overthrow the government.

We watched for hours as overmatched law enforcement officers were beaten with American and rebel flags, and stomped into curbs. We watched as Trump’s thugs breached our Capitol inflicting millions of dollars worth of damage, and then hunted down politicians threatening them with death and hanging.

And while all this was happening Trump took no action, except for hoping the insurrection would succeed.

Finally, when it was clear the attack had been put down, he grudgingly harrumphed in front of a camera on the White House lawn, and through gritted, yellow teeth told the people who had attacked us that he loved them.

He told them that he loved them 


I just want to stop here for a second and ask again, because it can never be asked enough: What would have happened on this terrible day if Black people had inflicted the worst attack on our Capitol since 1812? Would they have have been told they were loved by the outgoing President of the United States?

Fact is, there would have been thousands of dead and wounded littering the Capitol grounds, and most white people would have been falling all over themselves to say they got what they deserved.

Because that is how America operates today and always. We are a racist country governed by white people, who predominate our elected offices, our military and law enforcement barracks, but mostly our banks.

I’ll never forget any of what happened that terrible day, but mostly I’ll never forget that chilling moment when the racist Trump told those disgusting people that he loved them, because that’s when I knew for sure he was coming back.

It was yet another call to the far-right, racist extremists who cement his morally bankrupt base to “stand back and standby.”

By telling the people who violently attacked us that he loved them, Trump was making it plain as day that unless he was jailed and/or prevented by Congress from ever running again, he was going to be back to finish us off in 2024.

He was telling us he understood America and the degenerates in the Republican Party better than the elected officials who were supposed to keep us safe, and honor our Constitution.

He was telling us he knew this country better than Mitch McConnell, or Biden, or anybody who he appointed to be his Attorney General. He was making a bet on injustice and cruelty, and against the country he had attacked.

First, McConnell and 42 other gutless Republican senators failed to vote to convict at Trump's second impeachment trial, which would have prevented the America-attacker from ever running for office again. Then there was the three-dimensional chess-playing legal scholar, Merrick Garland, who spent four years successfully putting himself in check.

So catastrophically did Biden's attorney general fail us, that even the foot soldiers in the Jan. 6 attack who he was able to successfully jail are now back on the streets because he refused to lay a glove on their lawless leader, the most dangerous man in the world.

Finally, there was Biden, a good man who spent four years too often talking about an America that never existed, and ended his term perched in front of a crackling fire at the White House just days after Trump had carried out his threat to return, and enthusiastically offering him his hand, a warm smile and a, “Welcome back!”

Welcome back. My God 


When will people start taking this violent, democratic arsonist seriously? When will we start looking at his repulsive actions, instead of taking him at his empty word?

I bring all this up today because in addition to making sure we never forget what has really happened to America, we keep a close eye on what is really happening in America.

The American-attacking Trump is telling us in words what he has been telling us with his actions the past 10 years: The Constitution of the United States simply does not apply to him.

When asked during the same interview last Sunday in which he said he wouldn’t run again, NBC’s Kristen Welker pressed him on if he will uphold that Constitution.

Trump answered this way: “I don’t know.”

Now ask yourself what would have happened if Barack Obama had given that answer.

D. Earl Stephens is the author of “Toxic Tales: A Caustic Collection of Donald J. Trump’s Very Important Letters” and finished up a 30-year career in journalism as the Managing Editor of Stars and Stripes. You can find all his work here, and follow him on Bluesky here.

ALSO READ: 'Sad white boys': Fear as Trump terror adviser shrugs off threat from 'inside the house'

'No they aren't!' Kristi Noem clashes as Dem lawmaker applies pressure on Capitol Hill

Secretary Kristi Noem clashed with a Democratic House member over whether U.S. citizens have been illegally deported by the Department of Homeland Security.

Noem and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent testified before the House Appropriations Committee Tuesday on budget-related matters.

Rep. Lauren Underwood (D-IL) took the opportunity to ask Noem about the Constitutional right to due process, which judges have ruled is being flouted by the Trump administration as they deport undocumented migrants.

"Do you believe that the Constitution grants everyone in our country the right to due process, including non-citizens?" Underwood asked.

"The administration has the authority to —" Noem began, before Underwood interrupted her.

"Ma'am, I'm looking for a yes or no...yes or no — reclaiming my time, Mr. chairman!" Underwood declared as Noem continued to talk over her.

Underwood began again, "Secretary Noem, I'm just looking for a yes or no answer here. Do you believe the Constitution guarantees due process to everyone in America?"

"Due process is exactly what this Congress —"

ALSO READ: ‘Pain. Grief. Anger’: Families heartbroken as Trump backlash smashes adoption dreams

"Yes, or no? OK ma'am, I'll take that as a no," Underwood said as Noem continued to talk. "Excuse me, ma'am, I'm trying to ascertain your understanding of the law as it applies to to your department, and you, as its leader, should be able to give us a yes or no answer. Because judge after judge has ruled that the law is not being followed. Do you believe that the U.S. government has the authority to deport American citizens?"

"No, and we are not deporting U.S. citizens." Noem answered.

"OK, great, I'm so happy to hear that you believe that the law does not give you that authority, because the federal government has no authority under U.S. laws to deport any American citizen...I know everyone viewing this hearing today knows that several American citizens have been deported to date."

"No, they haven't. That is not true." Noem countered.

"Secretary Noem, that was not a question...That oath that we both swore before taking office was to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Not the president, not a political party — the Constitution," Underwood concluded.

Last week, DHS deported three children along with their undocumented migrant mothers. The children, including one with cancer, were U.S. citizens.

Watch the clip below via C-SPAN.


Trump's armed thugs deliberately crushed this American family. Furious yet?

It was a cold, gray morning in Oklahoma when the government came crashing through the wrong door.

Without warning, ICE agents clad in black tactical gear burst into a quiet family home. Guns drawn, boots pounding on hardwood, they moved like soldiers in hostile territory — except this wasn’t a war zone. It was a suburban neighborhood. A home where children did homework, parents made dinner, and everyone believed, until that moment, that living in America meant having rights.

They were wrong.

In the chaos, the teenage daughter — still in her underwear — was yanked from her bedroom and forced to stand, exposed and terrified, while armed strangers rifled through her belongings. Her screams went unanswered. The agents refused to let her or the rest of the family get dressed. They didn’t explain why they were there, didn’t ask questions, didn’t seem to care that the person they were looking for didn’t live at that address.

Then they started taking things: cell phones, tablets, laptops — anything that might contain information or, perhaps more to the point, value. They seized all the family’s cash, their passports, their children’s devices. When the family demanded answers, they were met with silence and threats. No warrant was ever shown. No charges were filed. No receipts left behind.

ICE simply vanished, leaving the family humiliated, traumatized, and stripped of the basic tools of modern life. The agency has since refused to return the electronics or the money. There has been no apology, no accountability, no restitution — just a void where justice is supposed to live.

What happened to that family wasn’t an accident. It was a symptom — a glimpse behind the curtain of what the Trump administration has built: an unaccountable, increasingly lawless deportation regime that functions more like a secret police force than a branch of a democratic government.

And the targets aren’t just undocumented immigrants or criminal suspects anymore. They’re legal residents. College students. People born and raised in this country. Their only “crime” is voicing dissent, having the wrong skin color, or being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

But some are pushing back, bringing us big news from the ACLU yesterday:

“The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey ruled today that Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful permanent resident and recent Columbia graduate student, can move forward with his lawsuit claiming the government is unlawfully detaining him for his political views. The court rejected the government’s attempt to shut down Mr. Khalil’s case before it could be heard.”

Khalil has committed no crime. He was in the U.S. legally. His only offense — in the eyes of the Trump administration — was participating in peaceful protests criticizing Israeli policy in Gaza. For that, ICE agents stormed his university housing and locked him in a detention facility, citing a vague national security justification that amounts to little more than “we don’t like what he said.”

This is not how a constitutional republic behaves. It is how authoritarian regimes operate: by making examples out of those who speak up, and terrifying the rest into silence.

To understand how dangerous this moment is — how far we’ve drifted from our foundational values — we have to reach back nearly two centuries. Because this is not the first time American leaders have had to grapple with whether the protections of our laws apply to those without political power, to people who aren’t citizens but are still human beings.

In February 1841, 73-year-old former President John Quincy Adams stood before the Supreme Court to defend 53 African men who had been kidnapped from Sierra Leone, sold into slavery, and transported aboard the Spanish slave ship La Amistad. These men, having seized the ship and attempted to return home, were captured off the coast of Long Island and jailed as property, their fates debated not as individuals but as commodities.

Adams — the son of a founding father and one of the last living links to the American Revolution — didn’t argue their case as a matter of political favor or foreign diplomacy. He invoked something deeper: the principle that all people, regardless of citizenship, nationality, or status, are entitled to the protection of the law when they are on American soil.

“By what right was it denied to the men who had restored themselves to freedom,” Adams thundered, “and why was it extended to the perpetrators of those acts of violence themselves?”

He insisted that justice must be blind to nationality or legal status; that due process, as encoded in the Constitution, must apply to persons, not just citizens. If the government could arbitrarily decide who deserved rights and who didn’t, then no rights were truly secure.

It was a radical argument for the time, but the Supreme Court agreed. Adams won. And in doing so, he helped define a cornerstone of American jurisprudence: that the rule of law exists to constrain the state, not to be selectively applied at the whim of those in power.

Fast forward to 2025, and that principle is now under direct assault.

The Trump administration, enabled by allies in Congress and the judiciary, has weaponized immigration law and executive authority in ways that Adams would have recognized and condemned. They are now detaining legal permanent residents, like Mahmoud Khalil, not for crimes, but for speech. They are targeting foreign students and legal residents — often young people of color — for deportation based on political views, often under the thinnest pretexts of “national security.”

The administration’s justification in Khalil’s case? That his presence in the U.S. could cause “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.” That’s the legal equivalent of saying, “We’re deporting him because we want to.” It’s not just unconstitutional: it’s tyrannical.

And this isn’t isolated. Turkish graduate student Rumeysa ÖztĂŒrk was grabbed off the street by masked agents for writing an op-ed critical of Israeli policy in a student newspaper over a year ago. In both cases, there were no warrants, no hearings, no evidence of criminal activity. Just black-bag operations targeting people for using their First Amendment rights.

Meanwhile, pro-Netanyahu political groups — many with direct ties to Trumpworld — are openly compiling lists of student activists and professors to target for deportation. And the administration appears to be acting on those lists.

Mahmoud Khalil arrest Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University student who played a prominent role in pro-Palestinian protests at the university, is detained by U.S. federal immigration agents in New York, in March, in a still image obtained from a video. The Family of Mahmoud Khalil/Handout via REUTERS

John Quincy Adams would be horrified, but not surprised.

Because once the government claims the right to strip anyone of due process, rights cease to be rights and become privileges, granted or revoked at the whim of those in power. That is not a constitutional democracy. That is the scaffolding of fascism.

And sure enough, what began with undocumented immigrants is now creeping toward legal residents, foreign students, and even American citizens. The Trump administration recently floated the idea — with a straight face — of deporting certain American citizens to El Salvador.

Let that sink in.

The very notion should be constitutionally absurd. But like so many authoritarian moves, it’s being normalized through repetition.

First they came for the undocumented. Then they came for the legal immigrants. Then the student visa holders. Now, they’re signaling plans to come after naturalized citizens — and even people born here — if they hold the “wrong” political beliefs.

Trump’s January executive order made this shift brutally clear:

“To all the resident aliens who joined in the pro-jihadist protests, we put you on notice: come 2025, we will find you, and we will deport you... I will also quickly cancel the student visas of all Hamas sympathizers on college campuses.”

But who gets to decide what constitutes a “pro-jihadist protest” or who counts as a “Hamas sympathizer”? The Trump administration does. No court. No jury. No evidence required. Just guilt by association — and punishment without due process.

This is precisely how autocrats consolidate power: they redefine dissent as treason, criminalize speech, and strip away rights piecemeal until there’s nothing left to defend. It happened in Turkey under Erdoğan. It happened in Hungary under Orbán. It happened in Putin’s Russia. And now it’s happening here.

The echoes of the Amistad case are unmistakable. Back then, the federal government sought to hand kidnapped Africans over to foreign governments to appease diplomatic partners. Today, we are handing peaceful student protesters over to ICE and DHS to appease political donors and right-wing pressure groups.

The same disregard for humanity. The same corruption of justice. The same weaponization of government to serve ideology instead of law.

But just as Adams turned the tide in 1841 by reminding America of its founding principles, we must do the same today.

Because this isn’t about immigration policy. It’s not about border security. It’s about the foundational principle that all people — all people — have the right to due process, the right to protest, and the right to be free from government persecution.

That family in Oklahoma, whose lives were shattered by an ICE raid on the wrong house? They weren’t caught in the gears of bureaucracy. They were deliberately crushed by a system designed to instill fear, to dehumanize, and to render justice optional.

Mahmoud Khalil and Rumeysa ÖztĂŒrk are not threats to national security; they’re reminders of what democracy is supposed to look like: people using their voices to speak uncomfortable truths. That’s what authoritarians fear most.

And if we let this continue — if we fail to act — we are complicit in the unraveling of the very idea of America.

We must fight this on every front:

First, we need immediate legal challenges to every deportation that lacks due process. Constitutional rights don’t depend on citizenship: they apply to every person on American soil.

Second, we need massive public protest against these policies. Universities should, within the law, refuse to cooperate with ICE and protect their students. Communities should establish sanctuary policies. Legal organizations should provide pro bono representation to those targeted.

And finally, we need to reclaim the narrative. This isn’t about immigration policy or national security; it’s about the most fundamental American principle: that all people possess inalienable rights, even those who aren’t citizens or are accused of a crime.

John Quincy Adams knew in 1841 what we must remember today: a government that can deny due process to anyone can eventually deny it to everyone. The rule of law either protects us all, or it ultimately protects none of us.

The time for action is now. Contact your representatives. Support legal defense funds. Share this story. Join the fight.

Because if we don’t stand up for them today, there may be no one left to stand up for us tomorrow.