Supreme Court bows to Trump, and the Bible says he can do what he wants

Now that some cases against the Trump administration are reaching the Supreme Court, it’s time to find out whether the conservatives on the nation’s highest court will remember how checks and balances work.Thus far, they have not exactly covered themselves in glory, even though these cases only deal with early stages and preliminary relief. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court paused a California lower court’s ruling reinstating 16,000 probationary employees displays similar confusion about what constitutes an emergency. Six agencies being hobbled by illegal mass firings? Not an emergency. The Trump administration’s desire to keep six agencies hobbled by illegal mass firings? Totally an emergency. Related | Supreme Court blocks order for Trump to reinstate federal workers To be fair, the meager two-paragraph ruling doesn’t say that. Instead, it’s about standing—that the organizations that brought the lawsuit are not the proper parties to do so. That standing discussion let the court sidestep a key basis for the lower court’s reinstatement ruling: the Office of Personnel Management, which dictated and oversaw the mass firings, has no authority to do so, as one agency can’t hire and fire employees in another agency. It also rewards the Trump administration’s obviously false assertion that the individual agencies, not OPM, made the firing decisions. The Supreme Court also decided to do Trump a solid by temporarily blocking two lower court orders reversing the removal of appointed members of the Merit Systems Protection Board and the National Labor Relations Board. Chief Justice John Roberts handing out treats to Trump.The removal of Cathy Harris from the MSPB destroyed that board’s quorum, so it can’t hear any matters about wrongfully fired federal employees. The removal of Gwynne Wilcox from the NLRB means that body also has no quorum and therefore can’t hear any cases about private sector unions and labor disputes. Again, there seems to be no sense of urgency that public and private employees be allowed to pursue the remedies they’re entitled to under law. The only urgency is that Trump be allowed to do what he wants. The Trump administration’s legal theory here is that the Supreme Court should overturn Humphrey’s Executor, the nearly 100-year-old case that makes it illegal for Trump to remove the heads of these boards without cause. Normally, parties do not get to defy existing law outright and then, after being ruled against, race to the Supreme Court to make an argument about why the law should change while still refusing to follow existing law. Harris, Wilcox, and workers everywhere are the ones who are out of luck here, not the administration. Allowing the administration to change its story every time it gets caught out or to break the law whenever it suits Trump is just as much of a problem for the Supreme Court as it is for the lower courts. It’s unimaginable that any other party—or any other administration—would be allowed this much grace. These aren’t theoretical discussions over timeless legal principles. These are cases where the administration is doing everything it can to flout the law, and everyone else is just trying to stay afloat. But somehow, it’s the administration that keeps getting its way. House GOP votes to ban nationwide injunctions, forgetting how much they love nationwide injunctionsRepublicans are unhappy federal district courts are issuing nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration rather than narrow orders that only apply to the parties in the lawsuit. To fix that, the House GOP pushed through a bill that would bar federal district court judges from making those nationwide rulings. Related | House Republicans rally around 'idiotic' plan to punish judgesConservatives, however, love nationwide injunctions when they get to pick who does the enjoining. That’s why they file cases in two Texas courts where they’re guaranteed to get results. Judge Reed O’Connor, a George W. Bush appointee, has issued nationwide rulings blocking Obama-era guidance on student access to bathrooms based on gender identity, invalidating a Biden administration restriction on ghost guns, and striking down many of the Affordable Care Act’s requirements for preventative coverage. Meanwhile, Trump appointee and anti-choice fanatic Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk singlehandedly blocked the sale of mifepristone across the country, albeit only briefly.The real issue here isn’t nationwide injunctions. It’s that the Trump administration keeps getting handed losses by pesky lower court judges who don’t understand that their job is to let Trump do whatever he wants. How dare they. Trump stays losing, defamation editionIt’s not just the Trump administration that keeps losing in federal court. Trump still faces civil cases where he’s a defendant for personal, not official, behavior. Last week, he was handed a loss when a federal judge in Pennsylvania refused to dismiss a defamation lawsuit brought by the long-exonerated Central Park Five. Kamala Harris called out Trump during their debate—and he really didn’t like it.During the September 2024 presidential debate, after then-Vice President Kamala Harris brought up that Trump took out a full-page ad in The New York Times in 1989 calling for the death penalty for the boys, Trump doubled down, “They pled guilty, they badly hurt a person, killed a person ultimately.” After the exonerated men sued him for defamation, Trump argued the case should be dismissed because his statement was substantially true. Of course, none of them pleaded guilty, none of them hurt anyone, and no one was killed, period, which makes Trump’s statement not even remotely true. This ruling means their lawsuit against Trump can continue. Well, at least until Trump figures out how to get the Supreme Court to invent a new kind of presidential immunity that covers his actions as a private citizen. The Bible says Trump can target law firms. Checkmate, libs.If you ever wanted to see what it would look like if a Daily Caller comment section gained sentience and wrote a legal brief, look no further. A motley collection of fringe gun types joined forces with a couple of the more low-rent conservative legal groups to file a truly breathtaking amicus brief in Perkins Coie’s lawsuit against the Trump administration over the executive order targeting that law firm. Donald Trump, notorious fan of the Bible.Typically, amicus briefs are intended to provide additional expertise or context beyond what is presented by the parties in the case. This ... isn’t that. Instead, it’s a wild ride that cites multiple random Bible verses that happen to mention judges, leans heavily on a Dan Bongino book from 2018, and stitches together a bunch of news articles about the Steele Dossier and former Perkins Coie attorney Marc Elias. It also has a list of injunctions and restraining orders issued against the administration. Actual law, not so much. Taken together, this is all supposed to prove that the lower federal courts hate Trump and “are working at the behest of Big Law and Democrat state Attorneys General to resist the very changes which the American People elected President Trump to implement.” It’s tough to develop a conspiracy theory that sounds more unhinged than those floated to support Trump’s contention that he won the 2020 election, but this one might just take the cake. Big Law watch: Which knees this week?By this time last week, another two big firms, Milbank and Willkie, Farr & Gallagher, had each agreed to give the administration $100 million in pro bono work to avoid the now-familiar attack by executive order. This week, mega-firms Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett are reportedly preparing to do the same. Trump boasted about his latest victory on his social media platform on Friday, claiming the firms will provide “$500 Million Dollars in pro bono and other free Legal services, during the Trump Administration and beyond.” At least the earliest firms to buckle didn’t know yet that Trump would make a mockery of their vague agreements about shared pro bono goals. But the Trump team spent this week crowing about firms that “bend the knee”—an actual quote from White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt—saying they’ll provide free legal services to implement his so-called America First agenda, perhaps by representing coal companies or negotiating tariff deals. Somehow, that didn’t deter more of America’s highest-paid and highest-profile lawyers from lining up for the same treatment. Meanwhile, their willingness to let Trump take over their firms just emboldened him further. His latest executive order is against Susman Godfrey, saying the firm “spearhead[ed] efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrade the quality of American elections.”Related | Trump targets law firm that made Fox News pay for 2020 election liesSusman isn’t a firm associated with representing mostly Democrats or employing lawyers Trump hates. Nor is it a firm that usually handles election matters. However, Susman represents Dominion Voting Systems in its defamation lawsuits against Fox News, Newsmax, Rudy Giuliani, and other 2020 Big Lie types. Susman also represents Media Matters in its lawsuit against Elon Musk’s X. So now, even if a firm steers clear of Democratic clients and election work and never employs someone Trump is mad at, it’s still not enough. Campaign Action

Now that some cases against the Trump administration are reaching the Supreme Court, it’s time to find out whether the conservatives on the nation’s highest court will remember how checks and balances work. Thus far, they have not exactly covered themselves in glory, even though these cases only deal with early stages and preliminary relief. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court paused a California lower court’s ruling reinstating 16,000 probationary employees displays similar confusion about what constitutes an emergency.

Six agencies being hobbled by illegal mass firings? Not an emergency. The Trump administration’s desire to keep six agencies hobbled by illegal mass firings? Totally an emergency. Related | Supreme Court blocks order for Trump to reinstate federal workers To be fair, the meager two-paragraph ruling doesn’t say that.

Instead, it’s about standing—that the organizations that brought the lawsuit are not the proper parties to do so. That standing discussion let the court sidestep a key basis for the lower court’s reinstatement ruling: the Office of Personnel Management, which dictated and oversaw the mass firings, has no authority to do so, as one agency can’t hire and fire employees in another agency. It also rewards the Trump administration’s obviously false assertion that the individual agencies, not OPM, made the firing decisions.

The Supreme Court also decided to do Trump a solid by temporarily blocking two lower court orders reversing the removal of appointed members of the Merit Systems Protection Board and the National Labor Relations Board. The removal of Cathy Harris from the MSPB destroyed that board’s quorum, so it can’t hear any matters about wrongfully fired federal employees. The removal of Gwynne Wilcox from the NLRB means that body also has no quorum and therefore can’t hear any cases about private sector unions and labor disputes.

Again, there seems to be no sense of urgency that public and private employees be allowed to pursue the remedies they’re entitled to under law. The only urgency is that Trump be allowed to do what he wants. The Trump administration’s legal theory here is that the Supreme Court should overturn Humphrey’s Executor , the nearly 100-year-old case that makes it illegal for Trump to remove the heads of these boards without cause.

Normally, parties do not get to defy existing law outright and then, after being ruled against, race to the Supreme Court to make an argument about why the law should change while still refusing to follow existing law. Harris, Wilcox, and workers everywhere are the ones who are out of luck here, not the administration. Allowing the administration to change its story every time it gets caught out or to break the law whenever it suits Trump is just as much of a problem for the Supreme Court as it is for the lower courts .

It’s unimaginable that any other party—or any other administration—would be allowed this much grace. These aren’t theoretical discussions over timeless legal principles. These are cases where the administration is doing everything it can to flout the law, and everyone else is just trying to stay afloat.

But somehow, it’s the administration that keeps getting its way. Republicans are unhappy federal district courts are issuing nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration rather than narrow orders that only apply to the parties in the lawsuit. To fix that, the House GOP pushed through a bill that would bar federal district court judges from making those nationwide rulings.

Related | House Republicans rally around 'idiotic' plan to punish judges Conservatives, however, love nationwide injunctions when they get to pick who does the enjoining. That’s why they file cases in two Texas courts where they’re guaranteed to get results. Judge Reed O’Connor, a George W.

Bush appointee, has issued nationwide rulings blocking Obama-era guidance on student access to bathrooms based on gender identity, invalidating a Biden administration restriction on ghost guns, and striking down many of the Affordable Care Act’s requirements for preventative coverage. Meanwhile, Trump appointee and anti-choice fanatic Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk singlehandedly blocked the sale of mifepristone across the country, albeit only briefly. The real issue here isn’t nationwide injunctions.

It’s that the Trump administration keeps getting handed losses by pesky lower court judges who don’t understand that their job is to let Trump do whatever he wants. How dare they. It’s not just the Trump administration that keeps losing in federal court.

Trump still faces civil cases where he’s a defendant for personal, not official, behavior. Last week, he was handed a loss when a federal judge in Pennsylvania refused to dismiss a defamation lawsuit brought by the long-exonerated Central Park Five. During the September 2024 presidential debate, after then-Vice President Kamala Harris brought up that Trump took out a full-page ad in The New York Times in 1989 calling for the death penalty for the boys, Trump doubled down, “They pled guilty, they badly hurt a person, killed a person ultimately.

” After the exonerated men sued him for defamation, Trump argued the case should be dismissed because his statement was substantially true. Of course, none of them pleaded guilty, none of them hurt anyone, and no one was killed, period, which makes Trump’s statement not even remotely true. This ruling means their lawsuit against Trump can continue.

Well, at least until Trump figures out how to get the Supreme Court to invent a new kind of presidential immunity that covers his actions as a private citizen. If you ever wanted to see what it would look like if a Daily Caller comment section gained sentience and wrote a legal brief, look no further. A motley collection of fringe gun types joined forces with a couple of the more low-rent conservative legal groups to file a truly breathtaking amicus brief in Perkins Coie’s lawsuit against the Trump administration over the executive order targeting that law firm.

Typically, amicus briefs are intended to provide additional expertise or context beyond what is presented by the parties in the case. This ..

. isn’t that. Instead, it’s a wild ride that cites multiple random Bible verses that happen to mention judges, leans heavily on a Dan Bongino book from 2018, and stitches together a bunch of news articles about the Steele Dossier and former Perkins Coie attorney Marc Elias.

It also has a list of injunctions and restraining orders issued against the administration. Actual law, not so much. Taken together, this is all supposed to prove that the lower federal courts hate Trump and “are working at the behest of Big Law and Democrat state Attorneys General to resist the very changes which the American People elected President Trump to implement.

” It’s tough to develop a conspiracy theory that sounds more unhinged than those floated to support Trump’s contention that he won the 2020 election, but this one might just take the cake. By this time last week, another two big firms , Milbank and Willkie, Farr & Gallagher, had each agreed to give the administration $100 million in pro bono work to avoid the now-familiar attack by executive order. This week, mega-firms Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett are reportedly preparing to do the same.

Trump boasted about his latest victory on his social media platform on Friday, claiming the firms will provide “$500 Million Dollars in pro bono and other free Legal services, during the Trump Administration and beyond.” At least the earliest firms to buckle didn’t know yet that Trump would make a mockery of their vague agreements about shared pro bono goals. But the Trump team spent this week crowing about firms that “bend the knee”—an actual quote from White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt—saying they’ll provide free legal services to implement his so-called America First agenda, perhaps by representing coal companies or negotiating tariff deals .

Somehow, that didn’t deter more of America’s highest-paid and highest-profile lawyers from lining up for the same treatment. Meanwhile, their willingness to let Trump take over their firms just emboldened him further. His latest executive order is against Susman Godfrey, saying the firm “spearhead[ed] efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrade the quality of American elections.

” Related | Trump targets law firm that made Fox News pay for 2020 election lies Susman isn’t a firm associated with representing mostly Democrats or employing lawyers Trump hates. Nor is it a firm that usually handles election matters. However, Susman represents Dominion Voting Systems in its defamation lawsuits against Fox News, Newsmax, Rudy Giuliani, and other 2020 Big Lie types.

Susman also represents Media Matters in its lawsuit against Elon Musk’s X. So now, even if a firm steers clear of Democratic clients and election work and never employs someone Trump is mad at, it’s still not enough..