Continue to Say No to Cuomo

I respond to a discussion about an appeal to consistently supporting the Democratic nominee. I agree, but am still bothered, particularly that Cuomo's sex crimes continue to be underreported. Plus, admit you were wrong!

SCOTUS Watch: More Summer Trump Enabling

The Supreme Court had a case involving Trump's plans to reduce the federal workforce for over a month. 

It decided to release a thinly argued "go right ahead for now" order only now. As Justice Jackson notes:

[D]espite this fact-bound determination and the extensive fact-finding that supports it, the Court now cavalierly concludes (in just one line) that “the Government is likely to succeed on its argument that the Executive Order and Memorandum are lawful.” 

We can only assume what happened other than Justice Jackson taking the time to write a solo dissent. 

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court blocked a lower court order that temporarily stopped President Donald Trump from laying off tens of thousands of federal workers and effectively dismantling congressionally created agencies by presidential fiat. Six weeks ago, Judge Susan Illston, a judge in California appointed by President Bill Clinton, explained at length that Trump was asking her to either declare that dozens of past presidents and congresses “did not properly understand the separation of powers,” or to “ignore” what the executive branch was plainly doing. “The court can do neither,” Illston said. 

This is another case of an extensive district court ruling lifted with little or no comment. This time, even Sotomayor went along. She briefly concurred. 

Sotomayor agrees with Jackson that Trump cannot reorganize without congressional approval. She argues that the plans themselves are not involved here. 

The unsigned order acknowledges this. Nonetheless, Jackson explains how the district court judge carefully explained why the Administration was acting unlawfully and why it was appropriate to leave the lower court's injunction in place. 

The court of appeals left it in place. Why should the Supreme Court second-guess the district court? 

Mark Joseph Stern, on Bluesky, noted that Sotomayor's concurrence implies a "deal" of some sort. Toss in the length of time this took to be decided. However, it is far from clear how much the "damage is limited." Are we still hoping for that? 

Another liberal notes:

I have no problem with Sotomayor's concurrence telling District Courts that they can still (as of now) stop actual plans given that the votes to maintain the stays weren't there, but it's still very hard to imagine stays of specific plans surviving Roberts's shadow docket.

The question then becomes, what is the value of that? District courts can try to "stop actual plans," but if that doesn't survive, what does (yet again) overruling a district court judge get you? Jackson explains why the judge was correct here. Sotomayor ("even Sotomayor") blesses overruling them. For what? 

Kagan could have concurred to say that while Sotomayor would continue her cred as a strong dissenter. Kagan has the role of the "reasonable liberal" who still believes in some institutional regularity. If Sotomayor is going to enable the Trump Administration, it should be for something truly significant. As Jackson says, especially at this moment, there is a reason not to do this. 

Why can't the justices just enjoy their recess without enabling the Trump Administration for at least a little while? Or, just release this before now? Oh well.

Amy Howe (SCOTUSblog) actually bluntly said only Jackson dissented, violating the assumed rule that you can't assume justices concurred in such cases unless they explicitly said so. I'm fine with that, too.

ETA: A small bit of sanity. 

The Court rejected Florida's request for a stay to let it start enforcing a state law that creates state-law crimes for federal immigration violations. A lower court held that it was pre-empted by federal law.  

The stay request was rejected without comment. 

Dave's World

 

I watched this show when it was first on, though for some reason stopped. NYPL has a copy of Season 2. It is thinly based on his life (e.g., he has one son; the show has two, neither named "Rob"). IRL, he also divorced his wife on the show early in its run. The show is a comfortable watch with a charming "Beth" and an amusing assistant. 

Happy 4th of July

 

Some thoughts for the holiday. 

Supreme Court Watch: More Orders

I expected a long "clean-up" order list with a bunch of statements and dissents about a variety of cases not taken from the usual suspects. We had less of that this time. Monday's Order List only had a few such things.

(Last year, we had a fifty-three-page final order list. This time it was twenty fewer pages with Sotomayor and Thomas each discussing two cases apiece.)

Today's final scheduled order list before the summer lists was only four pages long, akin to a list after a normal conference. The big news is that they took two cases involving trans athletes. Another case involves regulating where offensive protests can take place. 

The Court did not grant an appeal of a state court opinion protecting the right of minors to have an abortion in some cases without their parents' permission. The challenge raised parental rights claims. 

Alito (with Thomas) wrote a statement that said it provided a bad vehicle for appeal. Nonetheless, not taking the case should not be inferred to agree with the ruling below. The implication is that parental rights claims (at least here) still might have merit. 

Parents of trans children might be an exception. 

Coming Up

For your planning purposes, summer order lists are scheduled to be issued on Monday, July 21; Monday, August 18; and Friday, September 5, 2025. Summer order lists usually consist of actions taken by the Court on motions in pending cases, petitions for rehearing, and other miscellaneous matters. Emergency orders, such as in applications for stays, will continue to be released as required.

There is no scheduled upcoming conference, but it is likely to take place at the end of September. Meanwhile, they are taking a break, though they are still officially able to do business. 

As Steve Vladeck has discussed, before around 1980, the Court truly was in recess, and individual justices had to act in their individual capacities. That is not the case now. They will hand down scheduled orders and can provide others (including for the two executions scheduled this month) as required. 

Trump-related stuff will continue. Stay tuned. 

ETA: The Supreme Court had two order lists, one on Monday and one on Thursday. I was tricked into thinking we were done for the holiday weekend. 

We were not. Another "clarification" of a previous Trump-enabling decision dropped.

Kagan concurred -- she didn't like the first decision but thought the request logically followed from it -- while Sotomayor (with Jackson) dissented. 

The unsigned order references the "provocative" dissent without adequately answering it. 

Happy anti-tyranny day, I guess. 

Trump v. NYC

The MAGA bunch is attacking the winning NYC Democratic candidate for mayor, Zohran Mamdani, as a dangerous commie and some such. They are very concerned about our elections. 

More concerning are official attacks. Election interference is Trump's m.o. He was (rightly) prosecuted for it in New York City. 

Trump then corruptly interfered in an ongoing prosecution of Mayor Eric Adams. Started a criminal investigation, against traditional policy, of another candidate (Andrew Cuomo). Now, he is targeting another Democratic candidate. Consistency.  

President Donald Trump’s Homeland Security Advisory Council — a group that includes Rudy Giuliani, cop-turned-actor Bo Dietl and the founder of Bikers for Trump — held its first meeting on Wednesday to discuss the top threats facing the nation.

Trump has flagged him as dangerous and potentially a criminal. He has left open the possibility that Mamdani's naturalized citizenship can be revoked. He is accusing the leading candidate of a major city of being illegitimate.

The Homeland Security Advisory Council is not typically so heavy on politics. It was created in 2003 in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks and, as stated in the Federal Register, is meant to provide “nonpartisan and organizationally independent strategic advice to the Secretary of Homeland Security on critical matters related to Homeland Security.” 

The article, however, shows how a recent meeting was quite political. The discussion included endorsements (Sliwa) and semi-endorsements (Adams), and attacks on Cuomo and Mamdani. 

Giuliani (disbarred and found liable for defamation and still part of a pending prosecution in Georgia) being part of anything in this context is outrageous. But so it goes.

I apologize for including this photo without a trigger warning, but it does underline where we are today. New York City residents, especially, need to be on guard that our right to govern ourselves will be challenged by a constitutionally unfit convicted felon. 

NYC Democratic Primary Final

The votes are counted, and the next step in ranked choice voting took place. We have a candidate for my city council district. Mamdani won 56% of the vote and is a promising sign of the future for Democrats. Yes, some old timers worry about this upstart. Don't focus on that. People love to be all "Democrats in Disarray."