Dragon on Centre Street: N.Y. v. Donald J. Trump

I discuss the book and so forth here. 

George Santos Commutation

The 23-count indictment filed Tuesday replaces one filed in May against the New York Republican charging him with embezzling money from his campaign and lying to Congress about his wealth, among other offenses.

George Santos was convicted, expelled from Congress, and sentenced to seven years in prison. He went there in late July. Now, less than three months later, Trump commuted his sentence. 

Trump has a "birds of a feather" policy.

You see a pattern?

Trump's statement explaining his commutation has an extended potshot at Sen. Richard Blumenthal, including a childish nickname, regarding allegations he padded his Vietnam record. 

This is the usual "look a squirrel!" troll behavior. We are being governed by an Internet troll. Republicans don't want to do anything about it. This is another reminder they are chickenshit shitheads. 

Talking about animals:

The statement also says Santos is "something of a rogue," but was a loyal Republican. Again, it being Trump, he doesn't just say that. He notes Santos "has Courage, Conviction, and Intelligence" to always vote Republican (all caps). 

He tosses in that Santos was in solitary confinement for long stretches of time (he wasn't in prison for three months) and that seven years was too long a sentence. That might be debatable (I don't know the going rate), but the appropriate time was more than three months. 

(He was sentenced to 87 months and served 84 days, which is just wrong. Just have him serve three more days. These people can't do anything right.) 

He was not just a "rogue" and a repeat joke on Late Night shows. Santos was guilty of multiple crimes, including those that involved stealing money from people. He abused his office, besmirching the people's House. He hurt people. To cite one thing:

U.S. Rep. George Santos stole the identities of donors to his campaign and then used their credit cards to ring up tens of thousands of dollars in unauthorized charges, according to a new indictment.

Just a lovable scamp! Notably, he is not only being released from prison. The clemency grant involves "immediate commutation of his entire sentence to time served with no further fines, restitution, probation, supervised release, or other conditions." 

Just adding insult to injury.

Various news articles reported the commutation and Trump statement without providing suitable clarifying details. For instance, a quick check shows the "solitary confinement" occurred after a death threat. It was done for his safety. 

(It is generally best just not to trust anything Trump says, but an accuracy check should be a basic news procedure.)

This is petty corruption. The little things sometimes grate the most. They can just be that blatant. This is not on the level of the pardons/commutations of those involved in 1/6. But it is a blatant abuse of the pardon power for partisan ends. 

Again, our anger should be broadly expressed. The Republicans in Congress refuse to do much at all, other than some of them sometimes acting concerned, to do anything about him. They are all enablers.

Today is No Kings Protest Day. Let's also have no trolls. Trump should be blocked. 

ETA: Not too surprisingly, his former N.Y. Republican colleagues were not a big fan of his good luck. This is what your guy stands for, so tough luck. 

===

Related: "A federal prosecutor who resisted President Trump’s demands to bring charges against Letitia James, the New York state attorney general, was fired along with her deputy on Friday evening, according to three people familiar with the matter."

A con artist, however, his right up their alley.

Local News

A bit of good news regarding the approval of a local "re-entry" housing project involving previously incarcerated individuals with special needs. It faces NIMBY opposition in my neighborhood, including from my (Republican) city council member. 

Eric Adams Is Bad Quickie

The NYT had a good guest essay on the corruption of Mayor Adams. The article also explains how the Supreme Court (at times unanimously) made fighting corruption harder in recent years. Yours truly, replied to this article, where the mayor made a switch to join NIMBY-ism. This matter has been a long-time concern. More bad.

A Grand Jury Doesn't Indict a Sandwich (Thrower)

I discuss grand juries and not indicting those who throw ham sandwiches. I toss in a look at how the process can be the punishment, as shown by what happened in a famous SCOTUS case.  

Kilmar Abrego Garcia Update [He's No Out Anymore]

Here is a bit of reaction to the latest news. He's back, after about five months (imagine that), with his family. For now.

Let's Make D.C. A State

Trump attacked D.C. as a criminal hellscape even though crime rates are at a historical low. He took advantage (see link) of the complicated law in place to "take over" the police functions there. I use those quotes advisedly.

He cannot permanently take control. Nonetheless, there are various ways he can interfere with local control. Also, he can bullshit about the hellscape part. Both are bad.

The catalyst of this specific activity appears to be (though maybe they were planning it anyway) an attempted carjacking involving a former DOGE worker with a stupid nickname. The incident happened, even if he exaggerated it. 

Some data points don't change the overall fact that D.C. is not a hellscape. Or, that interfering with local government is wrong. We saw a preview of this a couple of years ago when some Democrats (a supermajority in the Senate, only a small fraction in the House) blocked a local crime bill. 

One message that recent events show is that we need to have D.C. statehood. I have supported something less (home rule + a voting member of the House), but realistically, that would require a constitutional amendment. Statehood is the easiest way to defend voting rights and home rule. 

The population warrants a voting House member, hopefully someone else than the current one, who is nearing ninety and is way past her prime. 

Statehood brings a few other things, but I don't think they are problematic with a few other states with similar populations in place. The fact that D.C. has less unpopulated land doesn't do much for me. 

(We can amend the Constitution to overturn the 23rd Amendment, but Congress can also just allot the electors by national population. So, that is not much of a problem.)

Someone elsewhere argued the current Supreme Court would not accept making D.C. a state. I think there are no good reasons constitutionally to deny statehood. But, stupidity is not a barrier for this Supreme Court. If so, that will provide an incentive to do something about the Court.

Short term, Trump can only do so much regarding D.C., and what he announced is, to some significant degree, a lot of blather. Longer term, it suggests that among the changes made should include D.C. statehood. The two senators will partially help to balance out the misapportioned Senate.  

It is also a learning opportunity regarding talking about crime and what to do about it. We can continue to blather on about how "defund the police" is a stupid slogan. Either way, reducing the footprint of the police will promote public safety and police efficiency.  

And, tangentially, we should get a clear statement from Puerto Rico on what it wants to do regarding statehood. Puerto Rico repeatedly comes up in these discussions. Size-wise, at least, there is no complication regarding its "state-worthiness." 

Finally, in regard to "no taxation without representation" and all that, can territorial citizens overall finally be able to vote for president? Thinly populated territories might be too small to become states. They should have basic voting rights.  

(SCOTUS overturning the Insular Cases can help in the battle to treat overseas territories as equal partners)

And, yes, Trump is a convicted felon, and should be convicted of a lot more. He commuted and pardoned over 1000 people involved in the biggest crime in D.C. history. There is a big degree of “yeah right” to him fighting crime in D.C. 

Byron Black Execution (and Old Trans Rights Case)

On Tuesday morning, Tennessee plans to execute Byron Black for the March 1988 murders of Angela Clay and her two children. The killings were motivated by Black’s anger and jealousy over the prospect that Clay, whom he had dated, was going to reconcile with her husband.

A Justia/Verdict essay helps me out by discussing the latest execution. Toss in my time-old opposition to executing people decades (20+ years is a sound dividing line) as Justice Breyer (with Ginsburg; Stevens did so earlier) explained. 

Many horrible crimes are motivated by personal grievances. They also provide fewer reasons to execute the offenders. Deterrence is harder, and personal grievance is an emotional impulse that is less aggravating than some other things. 

Black is allegedly intellectually disabled (that is, enough to make execution unwarranted), is suffering from many serious ailments, including dementia (another de facto euthanasia execution), and there is evidence that this specific execution would cause a special degree of pain and suffering.  

All of those health problems are aggravated by executing someone almost forty years later.  I'm not saying we should execute people, but do so sooner. OTOH, we do have something of the worst of both worlds now. This is more euthanasia than execution.  

I guess some will say "okay?" Arbitrary euthanasia is a problem, however, even if you support euthanasia. 

Black had some final Hail Mary claims, and SCOTUS disposed of them [8/4] all without comment. I continue, especially in cases like this, with notable facts, I am bothered by the Supreme Court saying nothing when they open up the path to taking a life.  

ETA: There is clear evidence that the execution was botched. It was quite likely preventable. And, no justice said a bloody word. F that. 

Farmer was the first transgender plaintiff known to have a case heard by the Supreme Court, and her lawsuit was the first time that the court addressed the issue of sexual assault in prison. And it laid the groundwork for the landmark Prison Rape Elimination Act in 2003.

A recent article provides an interesting discussion of this 1990s case. For instance, she was a pro se litigant who won the SCOTUS cert lottery. Years after she sort of won her case, she lost on the merits, though key records were "lost," tainting the results. 

It is also appreciated that the Supreme Court as a whole respectfully treated a trans person. The majority did not use pronouns, though two concurring opinions (including Blackmun's, who provided the most liberal support of protecting prisoner rights) did use masculine pronouns.  

Another issue, which in a better world would have been another Eighth Amendment violation, is her sentence for non-violent offenses:

In 1985, she was arrested and charged in state and federal courts with separate crimes related to the scheme: theft, burglary, and passing bad checks in state court; credit card fraud in federal court. She pleaded guilty, thinking the judge would order her various sentences to run at the same time. He did not. At 21, Farmer was sentenced to 20 years in federal prison, to be followed by 30 years in Maryland state prison.

That's obscene. 

Eric Adams Receives (Limited) Support from Police

13 Law Enforcement Unions Endorse Eric Adams in N.Y.C. Mayor’s Race

Not surprising that law enforcement unions endorse a former police officer over a Republican who cosplays as one. Plus, Adams is the semi-MAGA candidate.

Numbers can be misleading:

The largest NYPD union, the Police Benevolent Association, was not at the event. Sources told CBS News New York the PBA wants to go through its own endorsement process and has not yet made a decision on who it will support in the mayor's race.  

He also has problems with stability:

He cycled through three police commissioners before Jessica Tisch’s appointment in November, the first mayor to have that many in a single term since the 1930s.

Zohran Mamdani has left open keeping Jessica Tisch. People have assumed he is just about defunding the police. The guy who is seriously about gaining power to destroy the institutions he oversees is Trump.

Adams' law enforcement endorsements come at a critical time in the campaign, after former interim NYPD Commissioner Tom Donlon filed a lawsuit Wednesday accusing the mayor and top brass of running the department as a criminal organization. 

In the lawsuit, Donlon claims that he was commissioner in name only and was removed from the role when he tried to report corruption and misconduct. He accused the mayor of giving real authority to NYPD members who were loyal to him, alleging the group operated without oversight, enabling sexual predators and burying misconduct investigations. 

Adams has a history of helping sexual predators. See his relationship with Donald Trump. More:

His lawsuit follows one filed last week by four former NYPD chiefs who claim they were retaliated against by the Adams administration after they blew the whistle on corruption within the department’s highest ranks. 

Okay. There is a reason that Democrats weren't going to vote for this guy in the primary. The polls suggest Adams still has significant support, though he would lose in a one-on-one campaign versus Mamdani (Cuomo would win there). 

Republicans are bad at being fiscal conservatives. They have a reputation for being better than Democrats. They are not. 

They also have a reputation for being tough on crime. That is also a mixed thing, especially regarding results. Trump has supported lots of criminals, including himself.

Eric Adams is a bad choice. He isn't even that strong, one issue you would think would help him. Being indicted didn't help there. But there is a lot more. 

Cuomo, who lost the primary and has his own problems with the law, is also a bad choice. Let's vote for the other Democrat, who is also conveniently running on that line. 

If you are a Republican, maybe you want to vote for Curtis Sliwa. I don't think he has the experience and serious policy chops to warrant that. Still, I understand the sentiment on a partisan level. Better than voting for Adams or Cuomo, probably.

Cuomo these days might be Trump's choice, now that Trump made Adams his you know what. Cuomo definitely has Trump-lite vibes in various respects. 

Vote Mamdani. It isn't too hard. If you aren't a progressive, just consider the alternatives.

If you are a conservative, fine, vote Sliwa if that is your jam. Mamdani will only lose, however, if there is a serious failure from the Democratic side. And, even then, splitting the vote will ease the blow. 

Eric Adams' having problems with the police underlines that the other options are not ideal. Cuomo has already lost. He had to resign being governor.

Again, it isn't THAT hard. 

SCOTUS Watch: Order List (1) and Some Books

Order List 

The normal term is over, but there is a significant amount of stuff left to clear away. Monday is the first of two order days. Most weeks only have at most one. 

The first order list is fairly busy. They granted a few cases, including a major campaign finance case.

[ETA: The next day, the Supreme Court appointed someone to argue the case.] 

Thomas and Sotomayor have statements and dissents in a few cases. Thomas didn't take part in a case without comment. Sotomayor and Kavanaugh would have taken cases without saying why.

(Curiously, the Sotomayor statement regarding the U.S. Sentencing Commission was joined by Barrett, with Jackson -- who had experience there -- not adding any comment.) 

A per curiam yet again rejected a Bivens claim (right to sue for damages, here a prisoner alleged physical abuse). The short opinion, without dissents, cites an earlier case saying there is an alternate route for relief. The liberals dissented there to point out the problem. Congress can address this problem. Ha ha. 

The Court also GVR'ed (grant, vacate, remand) a case, which is fairly common. The notable thing is that they granted a petition for rehearing in the process, something nearly never done. The case has been lingering since last summer. 

More to come on Thursday.  Also, for your scheduling pleasure, here are the three summer order list dates. 

Books

I was looking at a discussion of some fictional accounts of the Supreme Court and checked out two books from the early 1980s. 

Both are easy reading, while not too realistic (or detailed) accounts of the Supreme Court. They have some insider stuff while largely focusing on others tangentially connected to them. 

Margaret Truman (Harry’s daughter) wrote (or had a ghostwriter write) many mysteries, including ones with D.C. locations.

One involved Murder in the Supreme Court. The book doesn’t provide too many Supreme Court insights, tossing in some conspiracy stuff, but it is decent as a mystery. It provides various points of view, including a few justices and law clerks. The action largely focuses on the two people investigating the murder. 

Again, the Supreme Court stuff isn’t too impressive. For instance, why have a justice patterned on William O. Douglas and reference the actual person? The "youngest justice" was Joseph Story. The book takes place in the 1980s. Someone who fought in the Korean War is not too young.  

No More Dreams by William J. Coughlin is also from the early 1980s. Coughlin was an author and United States administrative judge. This book concerns the effort to replace a judge on a 4-4 Court. Tad heavy-handed with one justice supposedly deciding a bunch of life-changing things.

The Supreme Court took many more cases in the early 1980s. Many (most?) of them weren't too significant. The book also includes a rather unlikely law suppressing the freedom of the press (multiple serious articles are not published since the law makes the press liable for the results of the story, including a reduction of the collection of tolls after a story about the bridge being structurally unsound).  

The book largely focuses on a man's job (and various other personal things while he is there to investigate a possible candidate. Since the guy is principled, the ending is not too surprising. 

It is sometimes too detailed, but it is mostly a quick reading three hundred pages. 

Roberts Vents 

Meanwhile, Roberts is fine if you "vent" about bad rulings. He thinks mostly that it is about disagreement with the results, not the unfairness of the process.

OTOH, many argue it very well is about that. 

Strict Scrutiny Podcast

Strict Scrutiny had two "emergency" podcasts to cover the Planned Parenthood and birthright citizenship decisions (and other stuff) last Thursday and Friday. Both were around fifty minutes. I think that should be about the length of regular episodes. The hour-plus episodes sometimes seem too long.  Today's episode follows up, particularly about the LGBTQ+ case. 

You can listen and watch (the YouTube stuff is available a little after the audio). The episodes led me to again wonder why the "fourth Beatle" (Jaime Santos) left the show. 

She brought more appellate lawyer to the show, not being a law professor like the other three hosts. The (short) Wikipedia page does not even mention her. 

Curiously, after I once added a comment about her, it was removed. Did she just leave because she was too busy or felt it wasn't for her? 

I don't remember them making a reference to her leaving. Also, when she was an advocate in a case, the reference to her on the show sounded uncomfortable. I think it wasn't exactly a smooth break. 

It's all somewhat weird. 

SCOTUS Watch: Sotomayor/Jackson Dissent a Lot Edition

More Opinions

Friday brought six more opinions. There are ten left, which might be two days of opinions. Maybe three, which I would not be surprised about. So, they are mostly on schedule. 

There was a good amount of writing, though we are not talking hot-button stuff overall. The things covered included various regulatory issues, a disability claim that led to a strong dissent by Jackson, and a unanimous (on result; the one case Sotomayor and Jackson simply went along). decision about jurisdiction in a lawsuit against the PLO.

Kagan had a strong dissent for the liberals in a regulatory matter arising from fax machines (just the fax, ma'am). She was not happy about the result ("Those words mean what they say, or anyway should.") I usually trust her judgment. 

Alito (with Gorsuch) grumbled some in dissent that provided a limited liberal result in a sentencing case. "Veteran trial judges often complain that their appellate colleagues live in a world of airy abstractions." The two former district court judges joined the majority opinion. Barrett replied at one point in a footnote regarding his "curious" allegations. 

Jackson, who used to be a sentencing commission member, concurred to partially disagree with some aspects of the opinion. She had a strong dissent (Sotomayor went along part of the way) in that disability case. 

Jackson included an on-point footnote answering Gorsuch's charge that she avoided relying on pure textualism as "insufficiently pliable." She noted that "ambiguous text" requires using multiple interpretive approaches because "pure textualism is incessantly malleable." 

Yes. People too often are cocksure about what the text means, sometimes in annoying Gorsuch-like fashion accusing people of making shit up because they are biased if they don't agree. This is not just something conservatives do, though they often are more likely to do so.  

Text is not always so clear. We often look at it through a glass, darkly, to quote Saint Paul. The appropriate means of interpreting the English language includes factoring in multiple criteria. Pure textualism, whatever that means, alone means using textual interpretative devices (with obligatory citations of a Scalia text) that offer multiple options.

Anyway, the cases are not overly exciting, and Kagan only dissented in one. They are of some importance, which again explains why Sotomayor and Jackson have so many separate writings. There are various lessons to be learned.

Eric Segall (Dorf on Law) on Bluesky noted:

The Court’s 4th case, for standing nerds, basically stands for the proposition that companies seeking profits have a much better chance of getting standing than civil rights groups and journalists. Pitiful and pathetic.

I'm not a standing nerd but respect his opinion (up to a point) on such matters. Jackson's dissent (Sotomayor dissents less strenuously) basically agrees with him, referencing eroding public trust and so forth. 

Jackson today knows her role -- liberal dissenter, speaking for the future. She has the "lone ranger" role Rehnquist had in the 1970s. This makes a Bluesky comment about her being a future Chief Justice even more apt. Took fifteen years, so have a ways to go. 

Mark Joseph Stern: "What you see in today's opinions is the three liberals assuming different roles. 

Kagan is the conciliator, siding with the conservatives to assure them she's reasonable. KBJ is ready to shoot flaming arrows and burn it all down. 

[#TeamJackson!] 

Sotomayor is in between them, trying to find middle ground and keep the peace." Sotomayor as peacemaker is almost amusing, but she does that. She had spoken of "her friend Gorsuch," for instance. 

Chris Geidner also has more on the trans health case, which deserves firm denunciation. 

Trump Enabling Watch 

The 9th Circuit helped Trump regarding his power to send the National Guard to California. They provided a rather low bar for determining normal means was not enough. 

Courts will be loath to interfere with executive discretion in such cases, but Judge Breyer (not that one) had a point. Overall, procedurally, it was a limited win for Trump.  

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court handed down an order that "the motion of petitioners to expedite consideration of the petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied" in a tariff case. 

Coming Up

We are coming up to the home stretch of the June home stretch. Another Order List on Monday. At least two opinion days. Two executions scheduled. 

The next opinion day for now is Thursday. That would allow for opinions days on Thursday and Friday, with a clean-up on the following Monday (June 30). 

Four Executions

Uptick in Executions?

I have not seen a reference to a limited uptick of executions. Nineteen have occurred so far in 2025, with six scheduled this month. 

There were twenty-five in 2024. The six this month would give us that with half a year to go. We would still be relatively speaking talking a relatively small number. Still, that seems notable. 

Summary

Three of the executions scheduled this week were for murders that occurred before 1995. The fourth was "recent," with things happening in 2006. 

Newsweek summarizes. I will not provide as in-depth a discussion as I sometimes have with all the people involved. I am getting weary of it. 

Three of the executions clearly (if we use twenty years as a dividing line) raise lingering death problems. See here (Breyer's dissent) and here.  

Why is it taking so long? To address one execution (the co-defendant died on death row in 2023), cited by Newsweek:

Appeals have been filed over the years concerning attorney misconduct, criticism of DNA evidence found at the scene, and a letter from Hamilton claiming he was the one who shot Gayheart, but all were denied, according to The Florida Times-Union.

You also have this sort of thing, which is a last-minute thing the judges won't (with reason) take seriously. 

The South Carolina murderer claims mental illness mitigated his crimes. The prosecutor said he was "just plain evil."  Sounds a bit biblical.  Another also argues that someone else is more to blame. 

The Supreme Court dealt with final claims against the first two executions, as usual, without comment. As usual, I think someone should comment, even if briefly. Here is a summary of the first two executions.

If you want, you can click above to read the details, but let me just acknowledge, we have a bunch of horrible murders here. Sexual assault was involved in more than one. Someone murdered after escaping prison, where he was serving for a non-capital crime. 

The states: Florida (lethal injection), Alabama (nitrogen gas), Oklahoma (lethal injection), and South Carolina (chose lethal injection after reports of problems with the firing squad). Not that the state had a smooth time of it with either one. 

South Carolina, after another without comment rejection by the Supreme Court, was the fourth and last state to execute. The final challenge concerned the dangers of the state's execution methods and the secrecy that burdened obtaining information.

These are valid concerns, but the Supreme Court has not shown much concern about them. The lack of novelty helps explain the final rejection though does not erase the problems of judicial silence.  

Oklahoma 

The Oklahoma execution was thanks to Trump. The Biden Administration did not consent to a transfer as he served a life term for bank robbery and other crimes. Trump is more pro-execution, which he is using to promote his other policy goals. 

In addition to pursuing the death penalty where possible, the Attorney General shall, where consistent with applicable law, pursue Federal jurisdiction and seek the death penalty regardless of other factors for every federal capital crime involving (i) the murder of a law-enforcement officer; or (ii) a capital crime committed by an alien illegally present in this country.

I agree with this analysis that argues against this policy, particularly as "dangerous speech" against a specific group. There are various valid criteria when determining prosecutorial discretion. This is not one. 

The Oklahoma execution was held up in state court because one of the three votes against clemency came from someone who worked for the Tulsa County District Attorney’s Office when Hanson was being prosecuted. He argued he wasn't really involved. 

The paper-thin 3-2 vote against commutation is even more questionably the deciding factor when there is some reason to doubt the impartiality of the deciding vote. Death should not turn on such things. 

The court of appeals found that (1) the judge didn't have the power to hold up things, (2) it's moot since without that vote, it would have been 2-2, which wasn't enough anyway.  

SCOTUS also rejected a Hail Mary appeal without a comment. He was then executed. 

Final Thoughts 

Executions after thirty or more years also particularly bother me. The executions this week show that horrible crimes warrant long prison sentences. The death penalty is too problematic even here.  

See here for some discussion of how so-called tough-on-crime punishments often do not serve the interests of justice. I think the overall principles also apply to the death penalty. All four states went another way.

There are two more executions scheduled this month.  

Trump Follies

I provide a Supreme Court wrap-up on my Substack. The Friday news is that the Supreme Court furthered Trump's empowerment (in a bad way) over hundreds of thousands of immigrants, with only Sotomayor and Jackson publicly dissenting.

Trump targeted Leonard Leo after one of his picks went against Trump. The lower court anti-Trump rulings include multiple "Trump judges." Trump has begun selecting some more judges. His tainting of the judiciary continues.

Emil Bove, whose follies include the Eric Adams mess, is up for a Third Circuit slot. Bove needs to be a leading target for Democrats. The fact that he was a former Trump defense lawyer is the least of his problems. 

And then there are the usual ideologues, who otherwise might be reasonable selections based on minimum standards of legitimacy. Democrats should also oppose many of them. 

Pardons are one of the most "royal" powers of the presidency. There are limited exceptions, including the implicit bar against self-pardons. Horrible pardons, such as for the 1/6 insurrectionists, seem "merely" horrible. Some novel arguments can be made as to why they are illegal. 

Blatant bribery should also be limited. Good luck with that. Trump v. U.S. technically left open bribery prosecutions but added bogus roadblocks as if the normal prosecutorial process was not already fatally slow. Parsing the language is a bit academic. 

[See also: "Of Trump’s 60 pardons or commutations unrelated to Jan. 6, about one in five of them have gone to those who have some sort of financial or political connection to him. Here is a list of those dozen recipients."]

Bove was part of the weaponization of the Trump Administration. In the administration’s first days, Bove told prosecutors to investigate and consider prosecuting state and local officials who oppose the Trump administration’s wanton approach to immigration policy. 

1/6 prosecutors lost their jobs. Judge Dale Ho (the good Ho) said delaying the prosecution of Mayor Eric Adams, who is now supporting ICE prosecutions, was egregious:

The deal had to pass muster before the federal district judge trying the case, Dale Ho. It failed to do so. Judge Ho ordered the case permanently dismissed, but said that Bove had done something unique: he was unable to find another example of a prosecution being withheld to “facilitate federal policy goals,” and, Ho added, it appeared to violate “the basic promise of equal justice under law.” [TPM link]

Civil servants are support to be independent, serving the public. Trump wants loyalty oaths. Protected officials via bogus "unitary executive" theories are fired to be replaced by flunkies, including those with anti-semitic ties. The guy being chosen for the Office of Special Counsel is a chef kiss.

The firehouse of bad includes targeting those whom Biden commuted from death row. Several are being sent to harsh supermax prisons. Their ability to challenge the transfer is far from clear. When will the three still on death row be executed with extra fanfare? Probably, they would find a way to mess that up like the previous Trump executions. 

I noted Trump's official Memorial Day message promoted a prayer for peace following congressional legislation. His personal message was less serene. It spoke of "scum," "USA hating judges," and "monsters who want our country to go to hell" (judges he doesn't like; he used all caps). 

Look into a mirror, dude. 

SCOTUS Watch

Maine Legislator

A Maine legislator was censured for doxxing a trans teen and required to apologize for the means she used. (Read the censure.) She refused.

The legislature then blocked her from voting while leaving open (read the legislature's reply for details) various other legislative activities, including committee work and proposing (and testifying on) legislation.

She brought a federal claim, but legislative immunity led to her being blocked in the lower courts. Justice Jackson decided it was not appropriate to step in. Appropriately. 

The Court itself (Sotomayor dissenting without opinion) did grant her an injunction. Various people found this an obvious thing. I continue to dissent. 

Was it a grave threat to voting rights for the U.S. Congress to strip Rep. Taylor Greene of her committee seats? How far should the courts get involved in legislative decision-making here? Legislators must follow the rules of the body. A "republican form of government" (appealed to by the other side) includes a legislature controlling its members.  

I think at some point, the penalty is counterproductive. She comes off as a martyr. But it shouldn't be a federal issue. I'm not too upset at the result. Still, I can see problems with second-guessing. 

Jackson's dissent overall is sensible.  

Opinions 

The one written opinion was a unanimous one by Barrett. 

A defendant who induces a victim to enter into a transaction under materially false pretenses may be convicted of federal fraud even if the defendant did not seek to cause the victim economic loss.

The case involved contracts being awarded with the proviso that "a disadvantaged business enterprise" be used. The awardees lied about how they were used. 

Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Sotomayor (making a Mets/Yankees tickets analogy) separately debated particulars. 

The big news was a non-decision. Barrett recused herself (without saying why*) in a major charter school case. The result was an evenly divided Court. 

The lower court opinion (Oklahoma Supreme Court) was upheld (protecting the separation of church and state) without it being a precedent for the future. 

Roberts likely joined the liberals. Kavanaugh, during oral argument, clearly voiced support for the charter school. Alito and Thomas are obvious. Gorsuch on religious issues also generally goes along with them. 

The conservatives will now seek a case where Barrett can take part and hope she goes along (good shot).

Trump Enabling Watch

The justices, in a thinly argued order, allowed Trump to remove people from independent agencies for now, with a "don't worry about the Fed" bit tossed in. 

As the order begins noting, Congress passed a law saying people can only be removed for cause. Trump does not have the authority to override that.

Neither history nor text shows that "executive power" (the power to carry out things) provides a constitutional override. 

Kagan, this being her bailiwick, had a strong dissent against this shadow docket extension of bullshit executive power precedent of the Roberts Court, attacking an over 90 years old rule.  

Meanwhile ...

Roberts granted an administrative stay (temporary) in favor of DOGE, holding up a lower court ruling granting a challenger the right to obtain some discovery to determine if it is legitimately performing its duties. We will see how long this lasts. 

Other

The Supreme Court denied without comment a request for a stay in a criminal case. A quick perusal suggests that the matter is not particularly compelling. 

Upcoming

Order List on Tuesday (Monday is a holiday), and another non-argument session and conference next Thursday. It might also be an opinion day. 

==

* Amy Howe summarizes:

Barrett did not state why she did not participate in the case. But the charter school was represented at the Supreme Court by the religious liberty clinic at Notre Dame’s law school, where Barrett taught for 15 years before becoming a federal judge and later a justice. And Nicole Stelle Garnett, who is a law professor at Notre Dame and a leading advocate for allowing the use of public funds at religious schools, is a close friend of Barrett’s. Barrett is godmother to one of Garnett’s children.

Justice Jackson recused from a Harvard affirmative action case because of a past relationship to the school without the additional personal connection.  

Symbols of Wider Trump Wrongs

Senator Jon Ossoff, who is up for a quite competitive seat next year, "strongly" agrees that Trump should be impeached:

“There is no doubt that this president’s conduct has already exceeded any prior standard for impeachment by the United States House of Representatives,” Ossoff told the audience at a town hall in Cobb County, adding later that there is “no question” a number of Trump’s actions have risen to the level of an impeachable offense.

The Administration's wrongdoing is akin to a powerful industrial firehose spraying so much water that we have a hard time keeping track. We keep on reading about the latest thing. It can be overwhelming. 

There is a value in symbolic case studies, which provide clarity and allow a special amount of attention. Kilmar Abrego Garcia is an example. He has a powerful story. 

The government clearly made a mistake. It is being reckless and criminal. Yes. They are openly ignoring protected rights. That is not legal. Impeachment is supposedly an overall safeguard. It is a paper tiger in many ways, even if Democrats controlled the House. Even more so now. 

(Impeachment retains some value. The two impeachments of Trump had value. They weren't enough and 14A, sec. 3 was but one additional tool that should have been used.)

So, other methods are used. A Democratic senator went down to visit Garcia. It helped to lead to his being removed from a cruel prison. There have been some implications that there was a positive development in his legal case. And, yes, the courts provide another avenue to fight the Administration.  

[The picture is from the linked story, Photojournalist witnesses Venezuelan migrants' arrival in El Salvador: '"They had no idea what was coming"]

The term "synecdoche" is a figure of speech where the part represents the whole. Garcia is a type of synecdoche of the Administration's detention and expulsion program. 

Michelle Goldberg reminds us about someone else:

Andry Hernández Romero, a gay makeup artist from Venezuela, sent to rot in El Salvador because the Trump administration claimed his tattoos link him to the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. 

There are many, more more, the stereotypical "thugs" tossed about repeatedly, not reflected in the people picked up:

Bloomberg reported, around 90 percent of the migrants sent to CECOT have no criminal records aside from immigration or traffic violations.

The usage of the Alien Enemies Act is patently illegal since we are not at war with the people involved, nor are any other requirements for usage met. One thing that stood out for me, however, was a passage about "time allowed to settle affairs and depart" for "not chargeable with actual hostility, or other crime against the public safety." 

The Administration, however, aims to use speed, in part to avoid court review. The Supreme Court has long recognized that even "illegal aliens" have some due process rights:

It is true that aliens who have once passed through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law.

(Citing cases back to 1903. Drawing a line between those here and those who are attempting to enter.) 

[Another symbolic case involved a person supporting autism. OTOH, RFK Jr. is not a big fan of autistic children.]

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, Senior Fellow at the American Immigration Council, on Bluesky flagged one technique:

There are a lot of cases where ICE has been accused of pressuring parents to agree to be deported alongside their children without giving them anywhere near enough time to make that decision or consult with other family members first. This seems like exactly one of those cases.

The case was another symbol, involving a two-year-old American citizen. When a Trump-appointed judge, who uses "Gulf of America," is concerned, it's a red flag.  

Again, there are many other cases involving children, citizens, and noncitizens. One article:

Trump Has Now Deported Multiple U.S. Citizen Children With Cancer

Appalling but, by now, par for the course. We knew Trump 2.0 would be horrible. He's just going a bit faster than expected. This is why people are fighting. 

To toss it in, there are also lots of symbols of the corruption of this Administration, including numerous corrupt pardons. The article links to a more general story.*

The latest:

President Trump on Wednesday pardoned a Florida health care executive whose mother played a role in trying to expose the contents of Ashley Biden’s diary.

The pardon of the executive, Paul Walczak, was signed privately and posted on the Justice Department’s website on Friday. It came less than two weeks after he was sentenced to 18 months in prison and ordered to pay nearly $4.4 million in restitution, for tax crimes that prosecutors said were used to finance a lavish lifestyle, including the purchase of a yacht.

His mother was a significant Trump donor. Came the same day for another pardon. Michele Fiore was convicted in connection with a fraud connected to collecting "donations to build a statue memorializing a police officer who had been killed while on duty." The level of corruption is so blatant that it is laughable, in a dark humor sort of way.

Again, people can't keep up with all of these things. I respect those who manage to keep track of different categories, perhaps with the help of color-coordinated spreadsheets.

Such is the value of symbols. 

Meanwhile, Senator Ossoff is right. Trump deserves to be impeached. Republicans have the power to stop him. They refuse to do so, even while a few make some noises about how he goes too far. The party jumped the shark. 

==

* The NYT cannot help a "both sides" in which Biden is criticized for not using normal pardon procedures, along with Trump. This again is applied in a bullshit fashion:

Both Mr. Trump and former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. were criticized for ignoring the screening and guidelines of the Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney in their clemency grants. Clemency experts objected to Mr. Biden’s far-reaching pardons of his son Hunter and other family members, and to Mr. Trump’s sweeping grant of clemency to all of the nearly 1,600 people charged in connection with the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

Yeah, not quite the same, including Trump's ongoing usage of the pardon power to help his cronies. Biden, for good reason, at the end of his term, provides pardons to a few family members to protect them. Trump does a helluva lot more, and it's only a few months in.  

Perspective ... it's a thing.  

A Biden-appointed pardon attorney was fired, allegedly arising from a refusal to recommend that Mel Gibson get his gun rights back. Here's a recent statement she gave to Congress. 

SCOTUS Watch

News reports show why, contra Alito (with Thomas) dissenting, the Supreme Court was correct to drop its late-night order regarding the usage of the Alien Enemies Act and so on. They had buses ready for the airport. Sorry, Alito, not premature. 

Order List 

Last week's Relist Watch flagged a post office dispute with competing petitions. This week's Order List took the U.S. case and turned down the petition on the other side. Otherwise, it was run-of-the-mill housekeeping sort of thing. 

Opinion 

The one opinion was summarized by Mark Joseph Stern on Bluesky this way:

The Supreme Court's first and only opinion today is a technical but important 5–4 win for immigrants. Gorsuch holds that a voluntary departure deadline which falls on a weekend or holiday extends to the next business day. Roberts and the three liberals join. 

The majority first explained why it was appropriate to decide the merits. The majority then acknowledged there were different reasonable ways to interpret the provision involved, but went in one direction using a "customary interpretive tool." 

This led to three different opinions (Thomas, Alito, and Barrett) dissenting over the power of the Supreme Court to hear the question and the merits.  

One or more additional opinions are due next Tuesday.  

Orders 

The Supreme Court addressed a lower court ruling that Kavanaugh had held up by a temporary "administrative stay." The Court let the ruling stand with Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh (without comment), saying they would not do so.  

As noted by the lower court:

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost has eight times rejected a proposed summary of a proposed constitutional amendment, preventing its proponents from circulating a petition and collecting signatures needed to place it on the ballot.  

The Supreme Court generally does not intervene in lower court matters, so the most notable thing here is the three dissenters. The amendment involves limits on qualified immunity and has a good chance of passing. If so, that's appreciated.  

There are also proposed amendments to the rules of Appellate, Bankruptcy, and Civil Procedure submitted by Chief Justice Roberts to Congress as authorized by law. 

Late Friday Watch: The Supreme Court again dropped a late order, early Friday evening. It asked for further briefing in a pending case, including dropping two 19th-century cases to discuss.  

SCOTUSblog Watch

Tom Goldstein, the founder of SCOTUSblog, is currently in some legal trouble arising from his gambling habit. This led to concerns about the website. There is some news:

The site is being acquired by The Dispatch, a right-of-center political news and commentary start-up founded by the conservative journalists Jonah Goldberg and Stephen Hayes. 

Amy Howe is one of the regulars who are sticking around. The main coverage will continue to be free with "plans to develop paid products for legal professionals in the coming months." 

Well, we will see how that goes. 

SCOTUS Watch

The justices are back and were a bit busy. 

Attacks on the Courts 

We already talked about the Supreme Court handling two executions and Chief Justice Roberts responding to Trump's call to impeach a lower court judge. It also handed down a couple rulings today. 

I was wary of Roberts doing that since impeachment is largely a political question. Nonetheless, given Trump (and others) broadly going after the courts, it is understandable that Roberts responded. His response had wider implications. Breyer agreed with Roberts.

There are additional Roberts connections:

The chief justice himself appointed Boasberg to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as presiding judge; in that position, he regularly reviewed, and ruled upon, extraordinarily sensitive requests by intelligence agencies to surveil communications between suspected spies and foreign powers. 

He also appointed Boasberg as chief judge of the U.S. Alien Terrorist Removal Court, where he would hear similarly sensitive information to determine if terrorists should be deported. 

It’s notable, too, that George W. Bush appointed both Roberts and Boasberg to the bench. 

(Barack Obama later elevated Boasberg to his current position.)

This is the guy that Trump wants to go after? He was even Kavanaugh's roommate at Yale! 

Orders

We already dealt with the death penalty-related orders. SCOTUS appointed someone to argue a case that the federal government did not defend. 

On Friday, the Court dropped a housekeeping order regarding assigning time for argument.

Opinions

I was not aware of opinions coming down today. Checking, the court calendar available on the home page, noted on Monday -- a day with nothing scheduled -- of possible opinions. Tricky.

Roberts handed down a unanimous opinion with Alito and Jackson with brief concurrence arguing its limited reach. He can still lose on remand. It involved the reach of a federal law criminalizing false statements. The opinion was one of several that limited the reach of federal anti-corruption laws in recent years with supermajority support.

Thomas upheld a criminal conviction via a 7-2 opinion that has law school hypo vibes. Gorsuch, starting off in a conversational tone (he has improved his writing style), dissents with Jackson. He is a possible "get" when attacking federal power.  

Back to Work

The opinion announcements show the justices are back to work. They had a conference, will drop an Order List on Monday, and will have oral arguments next week. They never did clear up that "what happened to the cert grant" in the capital case. 

ETA: The Monday Order List was ho-hum except for Alito (who also recused in another case without explanation as conservative justices do) and Gorsuch dropping statements (taking somewhat different approaches) proposing taking a case in the future to tweak how to apply the Confrontation Clause. 

Ignoring Court Orders & Constitutional Crisis

The issue of following court orders arose along with Trump assuring us he will follow them. One Trump bootlicker assured us any talk of a "constitutional crisis" is ridiculous. See also, Noah Feldman. 

Let me take these things in turn. First off, there is no real reason to take Trump at his word. 

Second, let us not try to parse dog whistles (or worse) like that of James David Vance. I think Steve Vladeck is great, but he is too cute here. 

Chris Geidner covers the various games that can be played to avoid following court orders or doing so in a half-hearted way. We know the drill. All those Warren Court opinions regarding civil rights, prayer in school, and police overreach were not simply followed.

Yes, it matters that we draw a hard line here -- it's akin to drawing the line at waterboarding in the torture debates -- since it is a core principle. We have not seen a blatant decision to ignore the courts akin to after Brown v. Board of Education. So far judges have slowed things down.

It's a long, long haul, and we should not be naive. This touches upon the "constitutional crisis" which is cumulative. Civil and criminal checks failed or only did so much. The one criminal conviction (which matters/is not trivial) was defanged per an "election waives liability" rule. Only others, and not just Michael Cohen, apparently should be liable.  

Once Trump was in office, he and his administration set forth a slew of unconstitutional and otherwise illegal orders. The possibility that the courts eventually will address some of the consequences (like trying to clean up a bag of pasta that scatters all over the place), while so many people and institutions suffer in the meanwhile, is of limited value.

It doesn't help when people and institutions help. Our constitutional system ultimately relies on "We the People" and our institutions. Congress (particularly Republicans) and the Supreme Court repeatedly failed us (impeachment, insurrection disqualification,* and immunity). The media soft-soaped things. The voters didn't care or show up.

As Chris Geidner summarizes:

It is important to realize that many of the administration’s so-called “wins” in the first three weeks have come when entities preemptively accede to Trump’s wishes without even challenging them. Whether you refer to it as “obeying in advance,” to use Timothy Snyder’s turn of phrase or one of the less appropriate phrases that I have used at times, it’s that. The White House put out press statements promoting the NCAA giving in to the threats in Trump’s anti-trans sports order and a small handful of hospitals reviewing or stopping the provision of gender-affirming medical care for minors after that anti-trans order. And, of course, Google Maps forced me to see “Gulf of America” on my phone on Monday night.

Also, multiple Trump's frivolous media lawsuits are being settled because the people and institutions fear him. This is understandable but dangerous as well as disappointing. And, again, a civic failure.

Geidner correctly tells us not to lose faith in democracy. Democracy is not merely majority rule and voting. It is a set of institutions, principles, and values. A Vladeck comment also provided good advice:

1) stay informed - read Timothy Snyder for ways to oppose autocracy, read how tyrants fall by Dirsus, read about what others have done historically - Havel and charter 77, read Applebaum and HCR; 2) stay connected with pro-democracy community, as you are; 3) attend lawful protests when your schedule permits - they are happening all over the nation but not reported by frequently by mainstream media; 4) write and call elected leaders - the impact of this is minimal but not trivial; there have been some surprising comments resulting from constituent push back; 5) don’t reflexively oppose all positions - only those that are important to you and threaten democracy. 6) don’t despair - remain hopeful and strong.

Meanwhile, keep healthy in your own lives, be good people, and root for the Mets. Well, maybe you can root for other teams too (I guess), and keep your mental health by enjoying the usual good things in life. One day at a time. 

===

* Congress could have passed enforcement legislation even if Trump v. Anderson wrongly tied the hands of state institutions. States still have the power to enforce the insurrection limitations for state offices.

This issue is going to come up again since 1/6 participants are going to run for public office and hold public offices. If they had previously sworn to uphold the Constitution before 1/6, they are still disqualified.

A presidential pardon does not waive the disqualification. 

Trump Corruption Watch: Eric Adams Edition

Trump is one big corruption machine. We have had various examples recently.

President Donald Trump on Monday pardoned former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, whose 14-year sentence for political corruption charges he commuted during his first term.

Blagojevich was convicted in 2011 on charges that included seeking to sell an appointment to then-President Barack Obama’s old Senate seat and trying to shake down a children’s hospital. Blagojevich served eight years in prison before Trump cut short his term in 2020.

===

President Donald Trump removed the head of the Office of Government Ethics from his post, the agency said Monday – the latest example of Trump acting against a government watchdog.

The agency’s director, David Huitema, was confirmed to the post by the Senate in November and officially began the job in December. He had been nominated by President Joe Biden but had languished for more than a year in the Senate before lawmakers confirmed him by a 50-46 vote during a post-election lame-duck session.

OGE directors typically serve five-year terms – allowing them to overlap administrations as part of an attempt to reduce partisanship. On Monday, a statement on the agency website read: “OGE has been notified that the President is removing David Huitema as the Director of OGE. OGE is reverting to an Acting Director.”

===

A judge on Monday granted a temporary reprieve to the leader of an independent federal ethics agency who filed a lawsuit claiming he was illegally fired by President Trump.

The Office of Special Counsel investigates and prosecutes violations of "prohibited personnel practices" like whistleblower retaliation, enforces ethics laws like the Hatch Act, and protects the employment rights of military veterans.

The office's leader, Hampton Dellinger, filed a lawsuit Monday in Washington, D.C., federal court after receiving a termination email Friday night.

===

The highlight (lowlight) for this NYC resident involves Mayor Eric Adams:

The Department of Justice has directed federal prosecutors to drop corruption charges against Mayor Eric Adams, offering him a potential political lifeline as he seeks reelection.

News of the directive comes on the same day the Democratic mayor announced new upcoming guidance on working with federal immigration enforcement and ordered his senior officials to refrain from criticizing President Donald Trump, whom Adams has courted since his reelection.

The reason, via Trump's lawyer (Emil Bove, now a top Justice official) in the election interference trial that led him to be a convicted felon (Bove also has significant prosecutorial experience) is that the prosecution interfered with Adams' efforts against "illegal immigration" and it was politically motivated:

Both Trump and Adams have claimed they were wrongly prosecuted by the Department of Justice under the Biden administration. Adams’ lawyer is Alex Spiro, who has represented billionaire Trump adviser Elon Musk.

To remind:

Prosecutors accused Adams in September of accepting travel perks from people affiliated with the Turkish government. In exchange, they argued, Adams used his influence to expedite the opening of a new Turkish consulate on the East Side, overruling fire inspectors who had found safety violations.

Prosecutors also accused Adams of accepting straw donations to mask illegal foreign donations to his 2021 campaign.

The Justice Department memo specifically references his work dealing with immigration but drops a footnote assuring us that there is no direct quid pro quo for helping Trump. 

The memo also takes a shot at Biden's release of Viktor Bout without noting the full nature of the prison exchange involved. Bout was in prison for nearly fifteen years. He was swapped for Brittney Griner, with another woman also coming home. Paul Whelan, a former Marine, was hoped to be included, but Russia rejected the idea. He was released later. 

The Adams move is "without prejudice," meaning the prosecution can be brought in the future, particularly after the 2025 mayoral elections, though I would not hold my breath. Allegedly, the prosecution was unfairly close to the election campaign. 

Sounds familiar.  

Gov. Hochul has the power to remove him but realistically would not do so without a lot of support from other political actors. We are talking about removing a democratically elected mayor of a major city who was not convicted of a crime.  

I have seen people call her a coward, annoyed some savior isn't swooping in. If you are upset, be upset with the others city and statewide who looked the other way. The time to start was last year, including perhaps having a special prosecutor or something. 

Kathyrn Garcia came in second place after the instant run-off voting was complete in the 2021 Democratic mayoral primary. The final count was 50.4% to 49.6%. Eric Adams then went against some loser in the general. So, we were quite close to a no drama woman mayor. Not exciting, but I'll take it. 

Eric Adams had a favorable time of it in 2021 with the opposition divided among multiple candidates and instant run-off ranking still a novel thing. We shall see if the candidates are more savvy about it this year. 

Adams is polling badly now though I wouldn't guarantee him losing quite yet. Meanwhile, there is the spector of Andrew "please no" Cuomo being a candidate. There are again no one who is a clear favorite as a challenger. 

Ultimately, it is up to the voters. It should not just be up to the voters. The justice system also should play a role. In a system that is not broken and corrupt.

Our constitutional crisis (or whatever) continues.