Tag: Supreme Court

Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments: How The Supreme Court, Trump, and the Far Right intend to undermine the First Amendment

The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments whether Oklahoma state tax dollars must be used to fund religious-based charter schools.  The state denied a Catholic Church school’s request for public funding.  During the arguments, most justices seem inclined to require that states provide taxpayer dollars to religious charter schools, if they meet all the other charter school requirements.  If the Court decides to require public funds go to support religious-based charter schools, this would be a fundamental reinterpretation of the 1st Amendment, what Thomas Jefferson called the “wall of separation” between church and state in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.

I don’t think it a coincidence that a week or so after the Supreme Courts’ arguments, Trump signed an executive order establishing a “Religious Liberty Commission.”  The purpose of the commission is outlined in the instructions:

“The Commission shall produce a comprehensive report on the foundations of religious liberty in America, the impact of religious liberty on American society, current threats to domestic religious liberty, strategies to preserve and enhance religious liberty protections for future generations, and programs to increase awareness of and celebrate America’s peaceful religious pluralism. Specific topics to be considered by the Commission under these categories shall include the following areas: the First Amendment rights of pastors, religious leaders, houses of worship, faith-based institutions, and religious speakers; attacks across America on houses of worship of many religions; debanking of religious entities; the First Amendment rights of teachers, students, military chaplains, service members, employers, and employees; conscience protections in the health care field and concerning vaccine mandates; parents’ authority to direct the care, upbringing, and education of their children, including the right to choose a religious education; permitting time for voluntary prayer and religious instruction at public schools; Government displays with religious imagery; and the right of all Americans to freely exercise their faith without fear or Government censorship or retaliation.”

While the language seems religion neutral, we all know this is about Christian religious freedoms and establishing Christianity as America’s established religion.  I don’t see Islamic or Buddhist or Hindu religious imagery being displayed next to the Ten Commandments at public schools.  Do you?  Be very afraid.   Our founding generation was fearful of the establishment of a religious state.  This fear animated two of Virginia’s most influential writers and thinkers:  James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.  

When Virginia’s General Assembly wanted to impose a ‘religious assessment,’ basically a tax to support churches, Madison and Jefferson opposed the measure.  As did the Baptist’s who suffered intolerable abuse by the Anglican Church prior to the Revolution.  In the “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments” Madison penned a cogent argument that is a relevant today as it was in 1785.  

I think it one of the seminal documents in our history as both Virginians and Americans.  As such, I have summarized Madison’s 15 key arguments below. They are worth a close read.

  1.  Religious liberty was “in its nature an unalienable right….because the opinions of men, depending only upon the evidence contemplated by their own minds, cannot follow the dictates of other men….  Religion is wholly exempt from the cognizance [of civil society].”
  2. “Since civil society itself had not right to interfere with religion, certainly the legislature, its creature, had no such right.”
  3. “It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties… Who does no see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same case any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects?”
  4. “The exercise of religion implies the right to believe in no religion at all, so even the most permissive tax to support religion might violate some consciences.”
  5. “Civil magistrates can properly neither judge religious truth nor subordinate religion to public purposes.”
  6. The Christian religion did not need civil support, it had often “existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them.”
  7. “’Ecclesiastical establishment,’ far from promoting religious purity and efficacy, had nearly always corrupted and stultified it.”
  8. “Rather than promoting order and freedom in civil society, religious establishments had ordinarily been malignant and oppressive.”
  9. “The assessment marked a first step toward bigotry, differing from the ‘inquisition…in degree,’ and would make Virginia no longer the asylum for the persecuted.”
  10. “Good and useful citizens would be driven from the state or deterred from coming there by a religious tax.”
  11. “Religious strife and violence would be encouraged by laws touching religion.”
  12. “The policy of the bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity…. The bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would circumscribe it, with a wall of defence, against the encroachment of error.”
  13. “An attempt to enforce a religious assessment obnoxious to many citizens would weaken respect for law and order generally.”
  14. “Evidence was strong that a majority of the people opposed the assessment.”
  15. “Because, finally, the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his Religion according to the dictates of conscience is held by the same tenure with all our other rights…. Either we must say, that they may control the freedom of the press, may abolish trial by jury, may swallow up the Executive and Judiciary powers of the State, may that they may despoil us of our very right to suffrage and erect themselves into an independent and hereditary assembly: or we must say, that they have no authority to enact into law the Bill under consideration.”

The Bill did not pass and a year later, Jefferson’s Statute for Religious freedom passed into law.  We must remain vigilant against trespasses against the 1st Amendment.  It is the cornerstone of why religiosity thrives in America.  It is the absence of state control in public spaces that permits churches, and mosques and synagogues and tabernacles and temples to spread and flourish across this country.  

Tom’s Report on the State of Americas Democratic Health

As of April 11, 2025

Benchmarks of Democratic Backsliding and Erosion

The chaos and mayhem continue. While everyone was glued to the self-inflicted and manufactured tariff crises, democratic erosion and backsliding continued.

Of note this week were two Supreme Court’s rulings, one regarding a challenge to the government’s interpretation of the Alien Enemies Act and the other on returning a man wrongly deported to an El Salvadoran prison (also related to the the Alien Enemies Act), and two unprecedented executive orders directing the Attorney General and the Department of Homeland security to coordinate investigations on two former first term Trump administration appointees.

Trump added comedian Bill Maher to his trophy wall.

Attacks on academia, science, and books/ideas continued.

On April 7, the Supreme Court sided with Trump regarding the use of using the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans associated with a criminal gang designated a foreign terrorist organization by, guess who, Trump.  Incredibly, the Court basically held that government actions under the Alien Enemies Act are largely not subject to judicial review. The court sidestepped the constitutionality of using the Act in peacetime. The following is a summation of the ruling:

  • The plaintiffs according to the Court used the wrong argument.  The plaintiffs challenged the government’s “interpretation” of the Alien Enemies Act.  Citing a 1948 case, the Court stated that Alien Enemies Act is largely not subject to judicial review, or as they wrote, “preclude[s] judicial review.  
  • The plaintiffs should have used the Write of Habeas Corpus, which they did initially, but changed their argument.
  • The Court also removed the US District Court’s jurisdiction to hear the case.  Stating that challenges must be heard in the district of confinement.  In this case Texas, the epitome of fairness and paragon of justice.
  • The Court did say that detainees must be given notice of deportation and that they be afforded an “opportunity to be heard.”  

The Court also issued a separate ruling directing the government to return a man improperly deported to an El Salvadoran prison be returned. However, the Court’s language in the ruling was so poorly and imprecisely worded giving the government wiggle room, which apparently they exploited because the following day, at a lower court hearing, the government refused to comply with lower court judge’s order to update the court on the government’s plans to return the man. The government’s lawyer stating he had no information to relay to the court. Can’t make this stuff up.

In an unprecedented and grim move, Trump signed two executive orders directing criminal investigation into two former political appointees from his first term, Miles Taylor and Chris Krebs. The two did not support publicly support Trump’s assertion that the 2020 election was stolen and asserted that there were not indications that the election was stolen. This is meant to silence every federal employee and every Trump appointee.

You can go to menu or benchmarks above to see the full cumulative list of benchmarks being tracked.

Legal Challenges to Alien Enemies Act of 1798 Not Subject to Judicial Review Supreme Court Rules

On April 7, the Supreme Court sided with Trump regarding the constitutionality of using the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans associated with a criminal gang designated a foreign terrorist organization by, guess who, Trump.  Incredibly, the Court basically held that government acts under the Alien Enemies Act are largely not subject to judicial review.  Let me say that again, the Court held that government acts under the Alien Enemies Act are largely not subject to judicial review.  Below is a summary of the key points and below that the Court’s ruling:

  • The plaintiffs according to the Court used the wrong argument.  The plaintiffs challenged the government’s “interpretation” of the Alien Enemies Act.  Citing a 1948 case, the Court stated that Alien Enemies Act is largely not subject to judicial review, or as they wrote, “preclude[s] judicial review.  
  • Instead, the plaintiffs should have used the Writ of Habeas Corpus (see earlier blog post on Habeas Corpus), which they did initially, but changed their argument, according to the Court.
  • The Court also removed the US District Court, Washington DC, from jurisdiction to hear the case.  Stating that challenges must be heard in the district of confinement.  Note not arrest, but confinement. In this case Texas, the epitome of fairness and equity and liberal jurisprudence.
  • The Court did say that detainees detention must have some ‘judicial review’ and must be given notice of deportation and that they be afforded an “opportunity to be heard.” 

Per Curiam

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 24A931 _________________

DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. J. G. G., ET AL.

ON APPLICATION TO VACATE THE ORDERS ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

[April 7, 2025]

PER CURIAM. 

This matter concerns the detention and removal of Venezuelan nationals believed to be members of Tren de Aragua (TdA), an entity that the State Department has designated as a foreign terrorist organization. See 90 Fed. Reg. 10030 (2025). The President issued Proclamation No. 10903, invoking the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), Rev. Stat. §4067, 50 U. S. C. §21, to detain and remove Venezuelan nationals “who are members of TdA.” Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren de Aragua, 90 Fed. Reg. 13034. Five detainees and a putative class sought injunctive and declaratory relief against the implementation of, and their removal under, the Proclamation. Initially, the detainees sought relief in habeas among other causes of action, but they dismissed their habeas claims. On March 15, 2025, the District Court for the District of Columbia issued two temporary restraining orders (TROs) preventing any removal of the named plaintiffs and preventing removal under the AEA of a pro- visionally certified class consisting of “[a]ll noncitizens in U.S. custody who are subject to” the Proclamation. Minute Order on Motion To Certify Class in No. 25−cv−00766. On March 28, the District Court extended the TROs for up to an additional 14 days. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 65(b)(2). The D. C. Circuit denied the Government’s emergency motion to stay the orders. The Government then applied to this Court, seeking vacatur of the orders. We construe these TROs as appealable injunctions. See Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U. S. 79, 84 (1981). The D. C. Circuit denied the Government’s emergency motion to stay the orders. The Government then applied to this Court, seeking vacatur of the orders. We construe these TROs as appealable injunctions. See Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U. S. 79, 84 (1981). 

We grant the application and vacate the TROs. The detainees seek equitable relief against the implementation of the Proclamation and against their removal under the AEA. They challenge the Government’s interpretation of the Act and assert that they do not fall within the category of re- movable alien enemies. But we do not reach those arguments. Challenges to removal under the AEA, a statute which largely “‘preclude[s] judicial review,’” Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U. S. 160, 163−164, (1948), must be brought in habeas. Cf. Heikkila v. Barber, 345 U. S. 229, 234−235 (1953) (holding that habeas was the only cause of action available to challenge deportation under immigration statutes that “preclud[ed] judicial intervention” beyond what was necessary to vindicate due process rights). Regardless of whether the detainees formally request release from confinement, because their claims for relief “ ‘necessarily imply the invalidity’ ” of their confinement and removal under the AEA, their claims fall within the “core” of the writ of habeas corpus and thus must be brought in habeas. Cf. Nance v. Ward, 597 U. S. 159, 167 (2022) (quoting Heck v. Humph- rey, 512 U. S. 477, 487 (1994)). And “immediate physical release [is not] the only remedy under the federal writ of habeas corpus.” Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U. S. 54, 67 (1968); see, e.g., Nance, 597 U. S., at 167 (explaining that a capital pris- oner may seek “to overturn his death sentence” in habeas by “analog[y]” to seeking release); In re Bonner, 151 U. S. 242, 254, 259 (1894). For “core habeas petitions,” “jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U. S. 426, 443 (2004). The detain- ees are confined in Texas, so venue is improper in the District of Columbia. As a result, the Government is likely to succeed on the merits of this action.
The detainees also sought equitable relief against summary removal. Although judicial review under the AEA is limited, we have held that an individual subject to detention and removal under that statute is entitled to “‘judicial review’ ” as to “questions of interpretation and constitutionality” of the Act as well as whether he or she “is in fact an alien enemy fourteen years of age or older.” Ludecke, 335 U. S., at 163−164, 172, n. 17. (Under the Proclamation, the term “alien enemy” is defined to include “all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TdA, are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States.” 90 Fed. Reg. 13034.) The detainees’ rights against summary removal, however, are not currently in dispute. The Government expressly agrees that “TdA members subject to removal under the Alien Enemies Act get judicial review.” Reply in Support of Application To Vacate 1. “It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law” in the context of removal proceedings. Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 306 (1993). So, the detainees are entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard “appropriate to the nature of the case.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 313 (1950). More specifically, in this context, AEA detainees must receive notice af- ter the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded within a rea- sonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs. 

For all the rhetoric of the dissents, today’s order and per curiam confirm that the detainees subject to removal orders under the AEA are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal. The only question is which court will resolve that challenge. For the reasons set forth, we hold that venue lies in the district of confinement. The dissents would have the Court delay resolving that issue, requiring—given our decision today—that the process begin anew down the road. We see no benefit in such wasteful delay. 

The application to vacate the orders of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia presented to THE CHIEF JUSTICE and by him referred to the Court is granted. The March 15, 2025 minute orders granting a temporary restraining order and March 28, 2025 extension of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, case No. 1:25-cv-766, are vacated. 

It is so ordered. 

Birthright Citizenship:  Will the Supreme Court Overturn Wong Kim Ark after 127 years?

The Return of Wong Kim Ark

Wong Kim Ark was born in 1873 in the city of San Francisco to parents of Chinese descent. His parents could never achieve citizenship because of the Chinese Exclusion Act and America’s naturalization laws that privileged whiteness since 1790.  Forever migrants in the land of the free.  However, their son and daughters born in America were American, or so they believed. 

In August 1895 after visiting China, Wong Kim Ark sailed back to the United States eventually arriving at San Francisco Bay.  According to the Supreme Court opinion penned by Justice Horace Gary, Wong Kim Ark was denied entry on the “sole ground that he was not a citizen of the United States.”  That’s a polite way of saying he was denied entry because a capricious and racist customs collector, John Wise, decided he didn’t like the Chinese man standing before him. 

Can you imagine what went through Wong Kim Ark’s mind when Wise denied him entry to his homeland, ordering him detained on the ship that brought him home, the SS Coptic. The helplessness, legal purgatory, you aren’t a ‘real’ American.  We’ve all been vulnerable at some point in our lives to a capricious individual who couldn’t give a crap less whether your life collapsed into a heap of lost dreams, a life placed on hold. That kick in the gut that makes you want to puke. 

Between August 1895 and March 1898 Wong Kim Ark ceased to be a citizen of the United States in the eyes of many Americans, both in and out of the legal system..  Imagine being stateless for years in a country that treated you as an unwanted outsider, useful only for your labor. I can’t imagine the ordeal, living in fear of deportation to a land not native to you.  Ones fate in the hands of an American legal system that was designed to oppress people like you. Life held together by a legal thread tethered to the 14th Amendment.  

The Case 

The Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association, born out of San Francisco’s Chinese immigrant community’s long experiences with systemic discrimination, filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus to free Wong Kim Ark from detention on the SS Coptic.   That filing began two journeys.  One for Wong Kim Ark to reclaim his citizenship and the other for America to establish the legal principle of birthright citizenship.

Justice Gray framed the argument in late 19th century legalese: “The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his  birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are carrying on business, and not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution…”

Thirty-one pages later the Court answered that question:  Yes.  Justice Gray writing, “…The question must be answered in the affirmative.”  This opinion was issued March 28, 1898, and in a week’s time, give or take a day or two, will mark its 127th anniversary.  

The Executive Order

One of his first acts as President, Trump issued Executive Order 14160, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.”  An Orwellian title meant to disguise racial hatred and the infliction of pain and suffering on vulnerable people.

The executive order set a two-pronged test for determining non-citizenship.  A negative test.  It reads uncomfortably like antebellum slavery statutes that based a child’s fate at birth as free or enslaved based on a parent’s status.  When birth should be a celebration of life this executive order turns into a nightmare, of families potentially destroyed, disassembled by a policy meant to be cruel, meant to dehumanize.

As for the executive order’s constitutionality, three federal district judges declared the executive order unconstitutional and placed pauses on its implementation.  Last week, however, the Supreme Court agreed to review whether the lower court orders should stand.  The Court gave the parties until early April to provide their arguments for keeping or overturning the lower courts opinions.  Why?  The Court did not have to hear the appeal since all three courts issued the same basic opinion.  There were no conflicting opinions to resolve. That is a worrying sign.  The Court should have said, ‘no.’  But they didn’t. 

An Uncertain future?

Will the Court eventually overturn Wong Kim Ark?  Yes, I do.  I suspect that at least four of the Justices would overturn the opinion today if they could.  I am unsure of Roberts and Barrett.  If the Justices later agree to hear oral argument regarding birthright citizenship, I believe they will overturn Wong Kim Ark by a 5-4 vote. Basically, ripping the soul out of this country.  Frankly, I don’t think Trump would have issued the executive order without some prior thumbs up by several Supreme Court justices.

Can you imagine the bureaucratic labyrinth of proof and denial awaiting millions of families should the court overturn 127 years of jurisprudence because a bigoted President doesn’t like black and brown migrants, the denizens of  “shit hole countries;” Trump standing in for the bigoted customs collector before Wong Kim Ark.  Endless rounds of notarized forms, systemic accusations of fraud, denials, reprieves, forever court hearings, fear of separation, dreams of reunion.  A hellhole designed to shatter souls.

Millions of stateless babies, millions of moms and dads sickened from anxious nights and days, families split and devastated by a party that claims to protect and nurture families. The executive order is predicated on racial animus and is counter to America’s values; deliberate misreads the 14th Amendment; trumped-up fables about American jurisprudence.  It does nothing to “protect the meaning and value of American citizenship,” on the contrary it taints America’s soul, divides the country, and throws citizenship into a bureaucratic shithole.

Tom’s Weekly Report on the State of America’s Democratic Health

As of March 14, 2025

It was a busy week with push back by the courts. Of significance was the apparently warrantless arrest of a legally permanent resident of Palestinian origin for national security reasons. He was arrested in NYC but moved to a detention facility in Louisiana and denied access to legal counsel. Two additional search warrants were executed yesterday (or today) at Columbia University by DHS agents.

Additionally, Trump requested the Supreme Court overturn three district judge rulings staying the implementation of his Birthright Citizenship ban. If the Supreme Court sides with Trump this would nullify the 14th Amendment and fundamentally alter how we as a nation think of citizenship. Very dangerous moment in America.

BENCHMARKS OF DEMOCRATIC BACKSLIDING AND EROSION

Civil Society:

  • Us verse Them
    • DOD purges DEI related words from all current and previous website posts.  Words such as Gay were removed, to include reference to the Enola Gay, the B-29 bomber that carried he atomic bomb over Hiroshima.
    • Federal government bans a long list of words that cannot be used in official correspondence, documents, websites, etc.  
    • Republicans in the House of representatives threatened to withhold federal funding if the District of Columbia did not paint over a Black Lives Matters mural. DC obliged.
    • Musk and Shapiro lobby Trump to pardon Derick Chauvin for federal convictions for violating George Floyd’s civil rights when he murdered Floyd.
    • Trump offers expedited citizenship to white south African farmers.
    • Attacks on DEI.  Recent threat to investigate Georgetown University law school and not hire graduates who apply for federal jobs.
    • Attacks on Trans people
    • Increasing number of book bans.
    • Prohibiting teaching African American studies, curriculum
    • Mass deportations
    • Trump requests Supreme Court overturn lower courts decisions to stay the birthright citizenship executive order.  Birthright citizenship executive order.
    • DOGE attacks on career civil service
    • Political attacks on European Allies in particular
    • Tariffs on trade allies 
    • Executive Order stating English is official language
    • Threats to seize Greenland, Panama Canal, Canada
  • Legislative Attacks on Minorities
    • Criminalizing or limiting Trans gender care in states (26 states)
    • Attacks on DEI 
    • Laws restricting trans athletes (23 states)
    • Executive Orders targeting LGBTQ persons in general and the military in particular.
    • As of November 1, 2022, 16 states had passed laws restricting the ability of educators to talk about race and racism in the curriculum. In 2019, only one state had such law. All 16 states provide details of the specific concepts that cannot be taught; five states explicitly prohibit teaching “critical race theory.”
    • Seven states impose penalties for discussing race and racism in the classroom. Two of those states name specific penalties for teachers (Arizona and New Hampshire) and principals (New Hampshire).
  • Political/Military Relations
    • Trump loyalist and right-wing TV broadcaster as SecDef
    • Firing of Chairman and Joint Chiefs
    • Trump loyalist Chairman Joint Chiefs pick
    • Firing of Senior Military Service JAGs
    • Firing of women leadership
    • Purging DEI related words from DOD websites
  • Attacks on liberal democratic Institutions and values
    • Political attacks on US Ally values
    • NATO membership in doubt
    • UN (e.g., recent vote with North Korea, Russia, and Belarus to against resolution condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine)
    • WHO withdrawal
    • Dismantling of USAID
    • Attacks on Press and First Amendment
  • Attacks on career civil service 
    • DOGE.  UPDATE:  A federal judge in San Francisco orders the reinstatement of probationary employees fired in mass layoff.  The District Judge deemed the firings “unlawful.”   
    • House Oversight Chair seeks investigation to “root out partisan staff who joined the executive branch” at the end of the Biden Administration.  Requesting names of all employees hired between Jan 1, 2024 and Jan 20, 2025.
  • Manufactured political, social, economic crises
    • DOGE
    • 2020 election result denial
    • Jan 6 insurrection and coup
    • Trans in sports
    • DEI in government, academic institutes
    • Zelenskyy/Ukraine White House televised meeting
    • Redo: Trade wars/Tariffs
  • Control/Manipulate media platforms
    • Social media companies X and Truth Social have become de facto government communications, issuing government wide edicts. 
    • X (Musk)
    • Truth Social (Trump)
    • Facebook (Zuckerburg Coopted by Trump)
    • Instagram (Zuckerburg Coopted by Trump)
  • Physical, economic, psychological coercion (trolls, social media, etc)
    • X
    • Truth Social
    • Facebook
    • Instagram 
  • Attacks on Science/Academics
    • Citing waste, fraud, and abuse, the EPA administrator canceled $20 Billion in Biden-era climate change grants. A federal judge ordered the EPA to provide an affidavit documenting evidence of waste, fraud, and abuse by Monday, March 17.  Stay tuned.
    • Trump stops $400 million in federal funding to Columbia University for allegedly not protecting Jewish students.  Additional schools on target list.
    • Trump calls for congress to “get rid” of the CHIPS and Science Act, $52 billion for increasing domestic capacity to manufacture computer chips. 
    • Trump on social media threatens to halt funding of universities or colleges that don’t expel students that protest. Threatens to deport foreign students.
    • Attacks on DEI at Universities, Research Institutions, 
    • DOGE mass firings NIH, NOAA, FDA, USDA, National Weather Service
    • WHO withdrawal
    • Eliminating science grants

Constitution:

  • Insurrection Act
    • Trump issued executive order Jan 20 requiring the Secretaries of defense and DHS to complete a report in 90-days on whether to declare a national emergency at the southern border, invoke the Insurrection Act and other measures.
  • Bills of Attainder
    • Trump Executive Order punishing a law firm that represents Democratic Party clients was rejected in part by a federal judge, who compared the executive order to a ‘Bill of Attainder,’ which is a legislative act by congress that punishes a person without a trial. Bills of attainder are banned by the Constitution (Article 1, section 8).  The judge issued a partial restraining order on the EO, writing the order ‘sent chills down her spine.’
  • Birthright Citizenship Executive Order that bans birthright citizenship, counter to the 14thAmendment and Supreme Court precedence.  Three district judges stayed the order and this week Trump asked the Supreme Court to overturn the stays.  A ruling in favor of Trump would effectively nullify the 14th Amendment and throw the country in chaos.
  • Presidential Term limits
    • Trump openly discusses multiple terms. 
    • Some in Congress drafting constitutional amendment to do such
  • Erode separation of powers
    • Senate confirms unqualified nominees to all cabinet positions. 
    • DOGE, Congress surrender power of the purse
    • Congress acquiescing to Trump (executive aggrandizement)
    • Centralizing executive power (Unitary theory of executive power).
    • Executive Order for President to assume supervision over independent agencies.
    • Judge permits DOGE to take over the US African Development Foundation, an independent Agency created by Congress.  The Foundation’s mission, according to it’s website, is to “invest in African grassroots organizations, entrepreneurs and small and medium sized businesses to promote local economic development.
  • Attacks on judiciary/court rulings
    • Vance and Musk call for impeachment of judges who rule against Trump initiatives.  
    • Conservative Super Majority on SCOTUS.  Mitchell rule about nominating supreme court justices in election years.  One rule for Democrats another for Republicans.
    • While lower courts are ruling against Trumps recent executive orders, it remains unclear whether the Supreme Court will sustain these rulings. Positive news:  Supreme Court upheld decision to restore USAID funds.
    •  Additionally, Supreme Court’s last term decision to grant Trump unlimited immunity from criminal prosecution for illegal acts done as official acts.
  • Attacks on press independence  
    • Amazon Prime, owned by Bezos, paid Trump’s wife $40 million for a biopic.  Amazon Prime recently added reruns of the TV show The Apprentice to Prime TV.
    • Bezos changing opinion section in Post.  
    • Lawsuits against ABC, CBS, and Des Moines Register.  
    • FCC investigation of NPR and PBS.
    • AP Ban at White House
    • Pentagon kicking out some press agencies
    • White House controlling of who in Press Pool
  • New Unaccountable Institutions (DOGE)
    • US district judge orders DOGE to turn over documents in a ‘discovery request’ from several States AGs, citing DOGE’s “unprecedented power” and “unusual secrecy.”
    • Social media companies X and Truth Social have become de facto government communications, issuing government wide edicts. 
  • Impeachment effectiveness
    • Impeachment failed to remove Trump during his first term.  
    • Calls to impeach judges who issue rulings counter to Trump (Musk/Vance)
  • Amend constitution
    • Trump requests Supreme Court overturn lower court stays on implementing birthright citizenship Executive Order.  Birthright citizenship is major test of Supreme Court independence
    • Change presidential term limits
  • Executive aggrandizement
    • Every day

Rule of Law:

  • Investigations/arrests
    • Palestinian activist and Columbia graduate Mahmoud Khalil, permanent resident/green card holder, arrested and threatened with deportation as a national security risk. Removed to a detention facility on Louisiana, although arrested in NYC.  Access to lawyers denied. Trump administration said more such arrests were coming.  Judge blocks deportation.  Two additional search warrants were executed at Columbia student residences by DHS agents.  No arrests.
    • Acting US Attorney District of Columbia sends target letter to Georgetown University law school regarding DEI. Threatens to not hire applicant from GT Law school for internships, etc.
    • In a setback to Trump, a court ruled that the firing of the head of the Federal Employee Labor Board, ruling the firing was unlawful.
    • Trump threatens to jail people on “domestic terrorism” charges for vandalizing Tesla cars at a White House garage sale of Tesla vehicles.
    • Trump signs Executive Order suspending security clearances of law firm Perkins Cole, a Seattle-based firm, that has long provided legal work for the DNC and other democratic and liberal groups. In an updated, a judge has issued a temporary restraining order on the executive order, comparing the Order to a “Bill of Attainder.” The judge wrote that EO sent “chills down her spine.”
    • NY Times reports that Senator Chuck Schumer is target of DOJ investigation. 
    • Operation Whirlwind, threat to investigate those that oppose DOGE by acting US Attorney District of Columbia Ed Martin.
    • NYC Mayor quid pro quo:  Drop federal corruption charges in exchange for political fealty.
    • Trump pauses enforcement of law prohibiting US businesses from bribing overseas companies, governments.
    • Trump on social truth threatens to cut funding for universities and colleges that don’t crack down on protests/free speech.  $400 million Columbia university.
    • Bank accounts frozen by DOJ of NGOs receiving funds from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction fund at the request of EPA admin who labeled these groups as “left wing.”  Eight recipients bank accounts frozen.  A Fed prosecutor resigned, saying she has been pressured to launch a criminal investigation despite a lack of evidence of wrongdoing.
    • Request by border Czar to DOJ to target Rep. Ocasio-Cortez
    • Threat to prosecute “sanctuary cities.”
    • Trump pardons all Jan 6 convicted felons.  Some of whom assaulted police officers.
    • Repeated threats to jail political opponents by Trump
    • Firing and investigation of federal prosecutors who participated in crimes committed by Trump (Jan 6, classified doc case)
    • Fire, demote, and investigate FBI agents
  • Creation of Paramilitaries
    • White Papers submitted to White House to create paramilitary forces to round up undocumented immigrants by multiple groups.  
    • This would circumvent posse comitatus (no use of military in Law enforcement)
  • Armed civilians
    • While the overall number of hate groups has dropped since 2018, the number of white supremacist groups had risen to an all-time high according the Southern Poverty Law Center.  
    • The number of reported incidents has risen, despite an overall drop in total group numbers. 
    • Pardoning of Proud Boys convicted of insurrection.
  • Mass incarcerations
    • Undocumented immigrants
    • Off-shore prison (Guantanamo)
    • Trump state willing to deport American criminals to foreign prisons

Voting Rights/Civil Rights:

  • Protecting elections from cyber attacks
    • The acting director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency paused “all election security activities” pending the results of an internal investigation (?).  All funding to the Election Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis center was cut.  This center helps state and local officials monitor, analyze, and respond to cyber-attacks targeting the nation’s election hardware and software.  Critical CISA election protection staff targeted for termination.
  • Attacks on Suffrage:
    • Birthright citizenship executive order would impact suffrage
  • Attacks on Voting (state/federal laws)
    • North Carolina Supreme Court judge election:  Riggs, a Democratic justice defeated Republican challenger by 734 votes, a vote tally confirmed by two separate recounts.  Republican Griffin filed numerous legal challenges seeking to throw out more than 60,000 ballots. 
    • Trump attempt to take control of FEC and other independent agencies
    • Birthright citizenship would throw voter rolls into chaos and reduce voting rolls by tens of millions.  
    • Federal bill to require proof of citizenship when registering to vote and updating voter registration reintroduced 2025.  Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act or the SAVE Act.
    • Shortened window to apply for mail-in or absentee voting (10 states since 2020)
    • Shortened window to deliver mail-in or absentee ballots (5 states since 2020)
    • New restrictive voter ID requirements (15 states since 2020)
    • Expanded laws to purge voter rolls (13 states since 2020)
    • Laws that limit number, location, and availability of ballot drop boxes (8 states since 2020)
    • Move US Postal System to Commerce Department open potential to manipulate absentee voting
  • Gerrymandering
    • Creating safe districts where there are no challengers from opposing party. See incumbency rates above.
  • incumbency (win/loss)
    • Too many safe districts.  
    • Incumbent wins reelection 95 percent.  
    • At the state level runs about 94 percent.  A number of states had 100 percent incumbent win.
  • Women’s Health and Reproductive Rights
    • Dobbs decision overturning Roe.  
    • 12 states banned abortions
    • 6 states no women’s health exceptions

Separation of Church and State, Religious Freedom

Supreme Court said States that provide taxpayer funded vouchers to private schools must also provide said vouchers to religious school students (2020).  In 2022 the Court again ruled in another case that the State could not restrict such funds within the school, that is fence off the voucher money to pay for religious instruction and worship.

State Governments establishing Christian studies, symbols, and objects at Public Schools to the exclusion of other religions 

  • Oklahoma: incorporate bible into the curriculum but no other religions’ texts.

Louisianna requires public schools display the ten commandments but no other religions’ tenets.