Dem
47
GOP
53
Yesterday, barring a successful appeal from the White House, the Associated Press won its lawsuit against the Trump administration. Recall that the AP had been barred from most executive branch press availabilities because it refused to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America. Remarkably, the ruling came from Judge Trevor McFadden, who is one of the Trumpiest judges in the land. He wrote: "Under the First Amendment, if the Government opens its doors to some journalists—be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere—it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints. The Constitution requires no less." Who knew McFadden was in class the day they taught freedom of the press?
The McFadden decision was a pretty big poke in the eye for Trump, and if the administration can't get a favorable ruling from THAT judge, of all people, it would be well advised to drop the matter. On the other hand, the White House did get another win courtesy of the Supreme Court yesterday. The Trump administration fired about 16,000 probationary employees, a federal judge issued an injunction that said the government had to rehire the 16,000 people while the court case played out, and SCOTUS canceled the injunction yesterday.
What this means is that these 16,000 workers will remain fired until there is a final decision on the case, whenever that might come down, from the federal court in California that is adjudicating the matter. They may or may not win. Even if they do win, they will go some period of time without a paycheck, and that money is not likely to be restored to them, even if they do win. So, a lot of these people are going to move on to other jobs, and won't be back, even if their case is successful. So, a win that is ostensibly temporary will be a permanent win, even if the administration ultimately loses the case.
And as long as we're on the subject of SCOTUS, let us add a few points to our report from yesterday, about the poor folks who have been forcibly deported to El Salvador without benefit of trial. We already pointed out that it's very problematic (and very cowardly) how frequently and how aggressively the Roberts Court uses the shadow docket. On top of that, however, the decision that the 5-4 majority made on Monday absolutely cut Judge James Boasberg off at the knees, effectively saying to the Trump administration "Feel free to disregard the rulings of lower-court judges, and to treat those judges like they are irrelevant." Not very consistent with Roberts' claims that he wants all levels to the federal judiciary to be treated with respect.
We also should have added that the 5-4 decision is a clear-cut case of the justices standing on their heads to produce the result they wanted. Recall, the Court decreed unanimously that people could not be arrested and deported without due process. However, in the 5-4 ruling, the majority decreed that "due process" means "you have to file a habeas corpus petition where you were detained" (in this case, Texas). Not only does that decree put the petitioners before a court that is likely to be hostile, but it also rather aggressively reinvents the meaning of "habeas corpus petition." A successful habeas corpus filing is asking for the petitioner to be released from the custody of the U.S. government. It is NOT asking for the government to keep someone in the U.S. rather than being sent to a foreign prison. That this ruling is a gross abuse against the meaning of "habeas corpus petition" was the main point raised in the dissent written by Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, which was joined in full by Associate Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan, and in part by Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
John Roberts is pretty inscrutable, and you can never be sure what he will say or do. However, the early returns do not give one hope that he plans to be a firewall against the worst excesses of the Trump administration. On the other hand, Barrett is a devout Catholic and may actually pay attention when her priest gives sermons about poor people and justice. (Z)