Remember when Donald Trump told people that they were tired of winning as soon as he was in office? If you are a Trump administration lawyer, he certainly does not feel this way. Depending on the tracker of the useful litigation of the group Just Security, the Trump administration lost its second incarnation, in thirty -six of fifty -six cases so far in the courts of the federal boycott and has not yet been subject to the provisions of appeal. In ten out of fifteen cases, they were lost at the next level of the review, the courts of appeal in the federal circle. These numbers are particularly striking because cases are at an initial stage, when the obstacles are high for those who seek to prevent management procedure.
With six offers in emergency situations that challenge four different management policies now before the Supreme Court, the coming days must provide a better sense of how Trump keeps there. Early indicators are not good for the administration: The court effectively rejected a request to intervene in the emergency situations that include the American Agency for International Development, although this is a vote from 5 to 4. In another case, it represents the challenge facing the Trump matter that restricts the new citizen In the urgency of the situation.
These statistics not only indicate that the administration is on the wrong aspect of the law. It also reflects bad law. The excessive litigation strategy combines the maximum assurances of the presidential authority, while insisting that any potential storming of the executive authority requires relief in emergency situations. that it ToneTreating federal judges such as small colleagues in law firms, when they do not confirm that they are biased. It sends lawyers like many legal feed, to defend the administration’s actions with slim or incorrect information about the basic facts. It is a compressed matter, if that, to comply with the orders of the court, is all except for the judges ’invitation to find the administration in the court’s contempt. Add to Trump’s behavior outside the court, which included a respected respectable judge’s attack as a “radical left madness”, calling for his isolation, Going after the major law With starkly unconstitutional executive orders. The administration that wants to vote, the chief judge John Roberts, may do it well to remember that Roberts spent years practicing private law.
A lawyer led the invitation to combat Trump that the Ministry of Justice “is trying to play with Trump and Stephen Miller”, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff. “It is a very bad strategy,” the lawyer added. “On the day, we are gaining more credibility with the Supreme Court by not feeling crazy about the orders of the court and judges.” Jack Goldsmith, a professor of law at Harvard University and a senior official at the Ministry of Justice during the reign of George W. Bush, reached the same conclusion. Certainly, “the lack of respect for the open administration towards aggressive political attacks on the judges of the minimum court will have a negative impact on the way some of the Supreme Court judges deal with and perhaps most of them are from legal cases coming to the court,” Goldsmith Books Last month on Substack, Executive jobs. The Ministry of Justice did not respond to the request for comment.
One of the possible explanations for this behavior that defeats itself is that the Trump administration does not actually care about winning-at least, not to win the court. It is concerned with damaging, as soon as possible and brutality – by bypassing agencies “in wooden pieces”, for example, as Elon Musk boasted Usaid The administration may eventually lose in court, but the damage that actually happened will be untestable. At the same time, this argument says, the administration reaps political benefit by choosing battles on al -Qaeda’s friendly issues such as immigration rights and transgender rights, and by launching the rhetorical war against judges. We call for the dismissal now, the dismissal will forever lead to any actual accountability, but it acts as cries of gathering.
Perhaps this is the administration approach; In this case, it is important to admit that there can be a difference between the tactics preferred by the sober thinking lawyers and their hot customers’ requirements. When your hot customer is the President of the United States, you can only do a lot. This reality was clear in February, early in the wars of litigation, when the Acting Attorney, Sarah Harris, felt that she had to drop a calming footnote in the emergency request that the Supreme Court prohibits less than the court to restore Hampton Delleger as head of the Prosecutor’s Special Office. Harris, a former law writer in Judge Clarence Thomas, confirmed to the judges: “The executive branch takes his constitutional duty to comply with the orders of the courts for the third Article,” Harris, the former author of the law in Judge Clarence Thomas, confirmed. (Dellinger has since had withdrawn the appeal, which seemed to be lost.)
This observation was not part of the randomness-the disturbing statement of the president was on social media, that “whoever saves his country does not violate any law.” In a former publication, Vice President JD VanceA graduate of the Faculty of Law at Yale University confirmed that “judges are not allowed to control the legitimate authority of the executive authority.” Such statements are not useful when you try to persuade the judges that the executive authority is making a legitimate confirmation of the authority. In the end, John Marshall’s chief of judges announced in the Mbury case against Madison, “It is a boycott and the duty of the judicial administration categorically to say what the law is.”
Regardless of the possibility that Trump will resort to the open challenge of the court, the truth is that the courts will be the final ruling on whether Trump can cancel the constitutional guarantee of independent citizenship, or departments by the Congress that was established by Congress, or the firefighters in independent agencies without reason, prohibited by military persons in military law firms, because they represent them or what they represent from Customers. In some of these initiatives, such as the ability to control independent agencies, the administration is likely to face a receptive audience, especially before the Supreme Court. For others, such as the newborn citizenship, the administration has a tougher way to win. The presentation of feasible arguments, the employment of an unauthorized language, and the treatment of judges such as the obstacles to the fools instead of the tenants who are in life in the contestant branch does not do anything to help its case.
In one case – challenges Remove Venezuelan immigrants They are accused of gang members, under the assumed authority of the law of foreign enemies, a law in 1798 that was used only in wartime – provincial judge James Boasberg was unloaded on a government lawyer to use “a complex and unauthorized language, I do not get used to hearing from the United States.” In a hearing on Thursday, Bouasberg, saying that the government “acted in bad faith”, seemed to be found in contempt for an order issued to not remove migrants.
In another case, involve Musk and the Ministry of Governmental efficiency, or DodgeThe American boycott judge, Tania Chutcan, spent the administration, but she was freed from lawyers for being deceived about the extent DodgeSalad on employees ’actions. “Defense lawyer is reminded of their duty to present sincere representations to the court,” Chutcan wrote in a footnote. Another judge in Colombia County, Anna Reyes, was more clear in response to the government’s argument that her executive order prevents sexually transformed individuals from service in the army applied only to people with sex defects – with the lack of a bitheGSETH and the official defense Ministry to confirm. “
