🧵This post by @shellenberger provides an opportunity for me to hit a point I've been making the last week, but which many are still missing. For 2 months, Trump Administration has faced an avalanche of unconstitutional court orders from single federal judges. 1/
2/ More TROs & PI have issued against Trump Administration in 2 months than 4 years of Biden. And while appeals process is still ongoing for many of those, appellate courts have already stayed several orders showing my point re unconstitutionality is not spin but reality.
3/ Supreme Court stayed one judge ordering payment of $2 billion in 36 hours & told judge to be more specific; 3 appellate judges said Trump likely to prevail on firing of Special Counsel Dellinger and ruled he remain out and not reinstated.
4/ Another appellate court stayed order of 1 judge undoing Trump's DEI policies, another judge reversed his TRO & refused to grant an injunction on putting USAIDs workers on leave.
5/ MANY other injunctions will be overturned on appeal b/c lower courts lack jurisdiction to decide employment & grants or army policy. Breadth of overreach by lower court, 1 judge, district court injunctions interfering w/ Trump's Article II power cannot be overstated
6/ Yet not ONCE did Trump Administration declare "fine, then enforce your order." For every MAGA person screaming "ignore those illegal orders," the Trump Administration has NOT done that. And we are talking about clearly illegal orders that infringe on his executive power.
7/ Instead, every time Trump has worked to find way to read order so he could comply AND not pit Article II against Article III. He did that in grant cases by reading exceptions court allowed for otherwise terminating funding. And he did that in the Alien Enemies Act case too.
8/ Yes, Trump Administration did not turn planes around, but it isn't saying you can't order me to do that but that you didn't order me to do that because only the minute order is binding and it cites case law to support its point.
9/ And once the planes left US territory, Trump said the order didn't apply because the "removal" took place. Throughout entire drilling by Judge, and even Judge's requests for Trump's team to say "we just disagree," Trump didn't say that.
10/ Trump Administration said "we complied in good faith and here's why." Yes, the here's why is a very narrow reading of the order & only the minute order, but it has case law to back that. Trump is not being pedantic--he is being prudent.
11/ While Article III is going out of its way to trounce on Article II, Trump is going out of his way to show comity to Article III--even when judges don't deserve it. Judges are not just looking for a fight but have hit Trump with several sucker punches.
12/ Yet Trump...TRUMP! is refusing to engage. This cannot continue for much longer, however, as lower courts are framing injunctions more & more wildly, leaving Trump Administration little room to maneuver in way he can comply without sacrificing his Executive authority.
13/ Which is why I said in the earlier cases before SCOTUS, there attempt at "prudence," was imprudent: By letting it play out in lower courts and not putting a halt to judges clearly illegal orders, judges have been emboldened.
14/14 Appellate courts & SCOTUS must step in now & forcefully because problem is one of judiciary's making--not Trump's. And Trump should be applauded for lengths he has gone to not create constitutional crisis by crafting plausible basis by which he obeyed illegal orders.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
2/ Here's argument: Trump Administration can't "fix" state's incompetence or its system of distributing money. And it is ridiculous to say it is arbitrary and capricious to keep money for kids food for kids food.
3/ How in the hell does this judge think he has the authority to force the administration to take money from another program to pay SNAP benefits?
THREAD on challenge to tariff: Opening this is tax. Common sense: Implausible Congress meant to let President to overhaul tariff. It is a one-way ratchet. It is a "sanction" statute, not a tariff statute. 1/
2/ Attorney: Verbs deal with embargoes but nothing about raising revenue. Many statute tariffs: Have many limits, this statute doesn't. Statutes say "tariffs" or equivalent.
Thomas: Going back to non-delegation point if, wouldn't that apply to embargoes.
Attorney: No. We aren't saying you can't delegate tariff you need to give "intelligent principles".
Justice Roberts: Foreign facing tax, but isn't that core power of Article II...and quite effective in achieving certain objectives.
Attorney: Think of this as Article I and Article II. Tariffs have foreign policy implications but founders gave that in Article I section 8 to Congress.
Justice Kavanaugh: If tariff were in the statute would that be acceptable and constitutionally permissible.
Attorney: Congress grant that authority to Presidents.
ME: WOW. He doesn't believe in non-delegation.
Justice Kavanaugh: What does Nixon stand for? Did Congress aware of that? Nixon announced in nationwide prime time speech, it wasn't a little piece of paper. Why didn't Congress change language?
Attorney: Nixon didn't rely on that statute and Nixon disagreed statute applied. The Circuit Court of Appeals decision doesn't change plain meaning. And even if Congress knew about it that doesn't help because case didn't say "unlimited authority," and use another statute. This president has torn up entire tariff architecture that Congress created.
3/ Justice Alito (?): Start with "regulate importation" would you agree that includes fees.
Attorney: NO.
Alito: "Regulate admission to park" can that include fee.
Attorney: Not helpful answer. Tries to distinguish from tariffs.
Alito: Are tariffs always revenue raising? What if imposed tariff to take effect in 90 days and agreement is reached is that a tax?
Attorney: This is obviously revenue raising. Taxation is different.
Alito: You cite many different provisions, what if imposed in an emergency?
Attorney: You need more precisions. Never has Congress added a tariff authority.
2/ John Sauer opens with summary of why Trump has power, framing as foreign affairs.
Thomas: Ask why major question doctrine doesn't apply.
Sauer: In foreign affair context, you expect Congress to give major powers, since he has Article 2 power.
Justice Kagan (I think): What kind of Article 2 powers are you relying on.
Sauer: President has broad authority in foreign affairs.
3/ Sauer: Article 2 power PLUS sweeping delegation by Congress and we are giving you Article 1. We aren't saying it is power to tax, but to regulate.
Justice Alito (?): Damsin Moore (spelling). We said very narrow, we confined to very questions in that yet you keep citing. Different provision of federal statute.
Sauer: We don't dispute narrow opinion but say it addressed same principles that apply here.
Justice Kagan (?): I just don't understand this argument. You are saying this isn't tax but it is a tax. You are saying this is regulatory but I don't understand this argument. Or that foreign powers or even an emergency say it can do away with major questions doctrine.
Sauer: Court has never applied in foreign affair.
Justice Kagan: Could have declared a national emergency in global warning and then forgiven student loans.
Sauer: gets cut off again.
Justice Kagan: Why does Congress always use tariff and regulate but not here.
Sauer: Cites another case but cut off.
Justice Kagan: cuts off again. AUGH. I think she has a good point but can't follow because she cuts off Sauer.