Injustice for All is a weekly series about how the Trump administration is trying to weaponize the justice system—and the people who are fighting back.
Sure, the Trump administration is zero for four in every case where a Big Law firm sued rather than knuckle under to one of President Donald Trump’s flagrantly illegal executive orders, but that’s no reason for them to stop trying.
After nearly running out the clock, the Trump administration got around to filing a notice of appeal to the 1st Circuit Court on Monday in the Perkins Coie case. Perkins was the first firm to sue the Trump administration over an executive order, with the lower court handing down its ruling nearly 2 months ago.
Since then, it’s been loss after loss—but that’s just because those pesky lower courts refuse to understand that one simply cannot rule against the Trump administration.
So now we’ll all wait for the Trump administration to run to the Supreme Court and declare that the world will slide off its axis if it can’t do whatever it wants, and the court’s conservatives will figure out a way to agree.
Can’t wait to see the explanation of how the First Amendment doesn’t apply here and that the Constitution demands a robust and nimble executive branch that’s allowed to threaten businesses for the content of their speech and choice of clients.
The Trump administration loses in court again, but will it matter?
On Tuesday, the Trump administration was handed another entirely deserved loss, this time from Federal Judge Melissa DuBose, who granted a preliminary injunction blocking the Department of Health and Human Services from engaging in mass firings and reorganization, including closing divisions and creating the stupid new “Administration for a Healthy America.”
DuBose ruled that the executive branch does not have the authority to make wholesale changes to the structure and function of agencies created by Congress.
“Congress never meant to confer HHS the power to self-destruct,” she said.
But like the law firm cases, these lower court victories feel hollow at the moment. After a Supreme Court term that ended by kneecapping lower courts, the Trump administration has no reason not to just race to the Supreme Court for permission to dismantle HHS.
Relevant qualifications are for suckers
Trump just sent over to the Senate the official nominations for several U.S. attorneys, plenty of which are repulsive. Some got the nod because they’re free speech warriors, where “free speech” is limited to conservative Christians. But there are two who really stand out as comically unqualified, even by Trump administration standards.
First, and completely expected, is interim U.S. Attorney for New Jersey Alina Habba was tapped. By the key performance metric of the Trump administration—which is your willingness to abuse your position in the service of Trump’s agenda—Habba is eminently qualified. She’s been happy to maliciously prosecute Democrats for performing their congressional oversight duties.
But when it comes to actual relevant legal experience, Habba is pretty much limited to representing Trump in civil cases. And, of course, repping parking garages and “Real Housewives” cast members.
Second is nepo baby Moore Capito, son of GOP Sen. Shelly Capito of West Virginia. His background seems to be entirely limited to corporate law and running for office, but that didn’t stop his mom from issuing a proud social media post praising him and Trump’s other West Virginia pick, Matt Harvey, as “two stellar candidates.”
Besides the whole corporate law thing, Capito’s biggest accomplishment is being related to other people.
“Along with being Sen. Capito’s son, he also is the grandson of the late three-term Republican governor Arch Moore, and a cousin to 2nd District Congressman Riley Moore.”
So glad we got rid of DEI so we can now hire people completely based on merit.
You thought the end of the Supreme Court term meant you’d get a break from Supreme Court news?
After a terrible end to the Supreme Court term, it would have been nice to have some respite. After taking the weekend off to rest and regroup, the court got up bright and early Monday to announce that it would hear a campaign finance case involving Vice President JD Vance from back when he was a senator.
One of the few campaign finance limitations left on the books is a provision on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates. In the 15 years since the Citizens United decision, the conservatives on the Supreme Court have continued to strike down contribution limits, ushering in a brave new world where the world’s richest man could buy the presidency and install himself in a secret, untouchable role at the helm of the government.
There’s no reason to think that the court won’t also strike down this limitation so we can have even more dark money sloshing around.
The court also remanded several cases related to trans rights in light of its decision in U.S. v. Skrmetti, which upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for trans children. Now cases about laws allowing people to change their sex designation on their birth certificates and insurance coverage for transgender patients will get reexamined.
Finally, a gun control measure the Trump administration supports
Continuing its role as a sort of all-purpose underqualified villain, the so-called Department of Government Efficiency got the nod to get rid of up to 47 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives regulations. Why 47? Because Trump is the 47th president. No, really.
The Trump administration has already made it so you can buy “forced-reset triggers”—which turn semiautomatic rifles into machine guns—and eliminated a Biden-era policy of zero tolerance for gun dealers who violate the law by doing things like selling guns without a background check. They’re also planning to shorten the forms needed to buy guns because it’s too hard to fill out 7 whole pages.
But while all of these gun laws have to go, the Department of Justice has apparently found a restriction on gun ownership that it can enthusiastically back. A Pennsylvania federal judge just granted the DOJ’s motion to dismiss, agreeing that not allowing medical cannabis users to own guns was constitutional.
In a Supreme Court filing in a different case, the Trump administration said that such a ban was necessary because they “pose a clear danger of misusing firearms.” Not when they’re high, mind you. Just by their very existence as cannabis users.
People using machine guns without background checks = good. People who take a weed gummy to fall asleep = bad.