President Donald Trump holds up a chart while speaking during an event announcing broad global tariffs in the Rose Garden of the White House on April 2, 2025.  (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in early November on whether President Donald Trump’s emergency tariffs are legal, according to an order the court released Tuesday.

The one-page unsigned order laid out an expedited timeline, which the administration had requested, for the consolidated legal challenges brought by a handful of business owners and a dozen Democratic state attorneys general.

A U.S. appeals court sided with the businesses and state officials late last month. In its 7-4 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a lower court’s ruling in May finding Trump’s unprecedented use of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act to trigger global tariffs violated the Constitution.

The justices’ acceptance of the case is the latest in a string of legal challenges against the administration that have escalated to the high court since Trump took office in January. Recently the Supreme Court has handed the administration wins on immigration enforcement and withholding foreign aid.

Trump began imposing wide-reaching tariffs in February and significantly broadened them in the following months on goods from around the globe after declaring national emergencies — first over illegal fentanyl smuggling, and then declaring trade deficits an emergency. A trade deficit means the U.S. imports more goods from a country than that nation’s businesses purchase from U.S. suppliers.

As of July, the U.S. had collected roughly $122 billion in tariff revenue, according to a monthly tracker produced by the Peterson Institute on International Economics. 

Tariffs are taxes that the U.S. government collects from domestic businesses and purchasers when they import foreign goods.

In the administration’s appeal to the Supreme Court to fast-track the case, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent argued the government would face “catastrophic” economic fallout if it had to repay businesses for the tariffs already collected, particularly if the court waited until next year to take the case.

Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico and Oregon were among states that challenged Trump’s emergency tariffs. 

The business plaintiffs include V.O.S. Selections, a New York-based company that imports wine and spirits from 16 countries, a Utah-based plastics producer, a Virginia-based children’s electricity learning kit maker, a Pennsylvania-based fishing gear company, and a Vermont-based women’s cycling apparel company.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 9, 2024. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday said the Trump administration can temporarily hold on to $4 billion in foreign aid funding approved by Congress, overturning a lower court’s order and continuing a struggle over who controls the nation’s purse strings. 

The one-page ruling from the emergency docket, signed by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., came just one day after the administration appealed the lower court’s ruling. 

While the original lawsuit over withheld foreign aid began in February and stemmed from an executive order, the Trump administration sent Congress a rescissions request covering some of the spending in late August. 

The proposal is part of the formal process laid out in a 1974 law that allows the president to ask lawmakers to cancel previously approved spending. 

Congress typically has 45 days to approve, modify, or disagree with a rescissions request. During that time the president can legally freeze the funding and only has to spend it if lawmakers don’t approve the plan.  

This particular rescission request, however, was sent to lawmakers within 45 days of the end of the fiscal year, creating a dispute that complicated the nature of the original lawsuit. 

That maneuver, sometimes called a pocket rescission, is considered illegal by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office and several members of Congress, though White House budget director Russ Vought believes it’s within the bounds of the law. 

Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in the Trump administration’s appeal that the federal district court’s order to spend the funding “requires the Executive Branch to rush to obligate the same $4 billion that the President has just proposed rescinding between now and September 30, and thus puts the Executive Branch at war with itself.”

“Just as the President is pressing for rescission and explaining to Congress that obligating these funds would harm U.S. foreign policy interests, his subordinates are being forced to proceed to identify and even negotiate with potential recipients,” he added. 

The Supreme Court’s decision Tuesday doesn’t address whether the justices agree with the administration that it can refuse to spend the billions in foreign aid since it sent the rescissions request close to the end of the fiscal year. 

Roberts wrote “that the September 3, 2025 order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, case Nos. 1:25-cv-400 and 1:25-cv-402, is hereby partially stayed for funds that are subject to the President’s August 28, 2025 recission proposal currently pending before Congress pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court. It is further ordered that a response to the application be filed on or before Friday, September 12th, 2025, by 4 p.m. (EDT).”

The federal courthouse in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Another trial in the killing of 17-year-old Alvin Cole by then-Wauwatosa police officer Joseph Mensah began Monday, with attorneys battling over whether Mensah used excessive force when he killed Cole following a foot chase in 2020. U.S. District Court Judge Lynn Adelman is presiding over the case, as he did when the case went to trial earlier this year, ending in a hung jury. Mensah has claimed that Cole pointed a gun in his direction, making him fear for his life and triggering his decision to fire five shots at Cole.  

An all-white, eight-member jury was selected out of a pool of 36 potential jurors, with an even split of men and women. None of the jurors are from Milwaukee. Two indicated that they have close relatives who served in law enforcement, though they said this would not sway their decision-making. 

Attorney Kimberley Motley, representing Cole and his family, used a projection screen to display a photo of Cole when he was younger. She told jurors that sometimes kids do stupid things, which in this case was running from the police, but also that running alone does not give grounds for officers to use deadly force. “Some kids ran faster, some kids ran slower, and Alvin was one of the slower kids,” Motley said. 

Motley noted that Mensah was not the first officer on the scene. Yet he was the only officer to fire. She stressed to the jury that Mensah, not Cole, “is the only one on trial,” and that jurors can acknowledge that police have a hard job while also finding that Mensah used excessive force. 

Cole was Mensah’s third shooting over a five-year period at Wauwatosa PD, a fact not shared with jurors. In his opening statement, attorney Joseph Wirth told jurors that foot chases are incredibly dangerous and unpredictable and that Cole made “catastrophically bad” decisions and “the escalation of danger” was “enormous”. After firing a gun he was carrying, Wirth said Cole went into a crouch-like position, fired at Olson, and then turned towards Mensah before he was killed. One of the key issues in the case has been conflicting statements from police officers on the scene, with Mensah saying the gun was only pointed at him, Officer David Shamsi (who was closest to Cole), saying the gun hadn’t moved at all, and Officer Even Olson saying that the gun was pointed towards him and away from Mensah. 

“Sympathy for loss of life can exist at the same time as your duty as a juror to uphold the law,” Wirth told the jurors. He asked them to “clear your minds of sympathy” and reiterated that “Alvin Cole made catastrophically bad decisions.”

Both civilian and law enforcement witnesses were called to the stand Monday, beginning with UW-Milwaukee film and documentary teacher Sean Kafer, who’d reviewed squad and deposition videos for the trial. Kafer testified that he added a red circle to a version of the squad video depicting the shooting, and removed background noise. The video was played multiple times for jurors. Wirth also played versions of the squad video. The low quality of the video was one of the issues noted by the jurors who failed to reach a unanimous decision in the last trial. 

Shamsi, now an FBI agent and a major in the U.S. Army Reserve with combat experience, was working overtime the night of the shooting. He was among the officers who “floated” to the area in case they were needed. 

After the first shot went off, Shamsi testified that Cole ended up on his hands and knees, with the firearm still in his right hand. Mensah came from behind Shamsi, who said that he did not see Cole turn or take a shooter’s stance as Wirth said in opening statements.

Video from Shamsi’s squad car was also played capturing him talking to other officers, including investigators from the Milwaukee Police Department who’d come to take his statement. In those videos, Shamsi can be heard saying “he was crawling” and that Shamsi was right next to “dude” when the shooting happened. When asked about Cole aiming the gun, Shamsi said, “I did not see it move.” Shamsi cautioned, though, that the situation was chaotic and rapid, and that he may not have noticed everything. He added that it was a deadly situation, and that he was prepared to fire if needed. 

Shenora Statten-Jordan, a principal at Messmer High School testified that she was leaving a Mayfair-area restaurant when the shooting happened. Driving her white SUV beside her husband and two children in the back, Statten-Jordan testified to seeing lights and commotion near the Cheesecake Factory parking lot. As her vehicle approached she could see other officers responding, hear the shots, and see a boy fall to the ground onto his stomach with his legs still kicking “as if he was still running.” 

Wirth attempted to establish, as he’d done in the last trial, that Statten-Jordan was not in a position to actually see the shooting. Video from Shamsi’s dash camera and a passing Milwaukee County bus, however, showed that Statten-Jordan was where she’d testified she was. After witnessing the shooting, she was interviewed by the Greenfield Police Department as part of the shooting investigation. Statten-Jordan said she’d offered to go back to the scene with officers, but that they didn’t take her up on the offer.

The last witness of the day was Wauwatosa officer Jeffrey Johnson, who left his own patrol sector to respond to the mall that day. Johnson recalled meeting Shamsi, chasing the teens and hearing the shots that ended Cole’s life. Johnson testified that Cole had fallen to his hands and knees, and that from his position 20-25 yards away that he, like Shamsi, did not see Cole move. Nor did Johnson fire his weapon, although he drew it after the first shot was fired. Johnson said that although he didn’t see Cole move while on the ground, a lot was going on. Johnson said that officer training does not require a gun to be pointed at you to justify firing. 

The trial is expected to last until late Wednesday or early Thursday, when the case will be turned over for deliberations. Dr. Weislaw Tlomak, Chief Medical Officer of the Milwaukee County Medical Examiner’s Office, is expected to begin testimony Tuesday.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Federal agents block people protesting an immigration raid at a licensed cannabis farm on near Camarillo, California, on July 10, 2025 . (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images.)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday lifted a lower court’s ban on immigration agents’ racial profiling of Latinos in Southern California, backing President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.

The order is temporary as the suit continues in lower courts, but it indicates a majority of the court is likely to side with the Trump administration’s defense against a complaint that targeting Latino and Spanish-speaking workers for immigration enforcement violated the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment that bars unreasonable search and seizure.

The high court ruled that the officers could use “apparent ethnicity” as one factor in determining reasonable suspicion, as long as it is not the only factor.

“Whether an officer has reasonable suspicion depends on the totality of the circumstances,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the majority.

“Here, those circumstances include: that there is an extremely high number and percentage of illegal immigrants in the Los Angeles area; that those individuals tend to gather in certain locations to seek daily work; that those individuals often work in certain kinds of jobs, such as day labor, landscaping, agriculture, and construction, that do not require paperwork and are therefore especially attractive to illegal immigrants; and that many of those illegally in the Los Angeles area come from Mexico or Central America and do not speak much English,” he continued.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the first Latin American member of the court, wrote a scathing dissent that the two other liberal justices, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined.

“We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job,” Sotomayor wrote. 

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass also slammed Monday’s decision from the Supreme Court. 

“Today, the highest court in the country ruled that the White House and masked federal agents can racially profile Angelenos with no due process, snatch them off the street with no evidence or warrant, and take them away with no explanation,” she said in a statement. “This decision will lead to more working families being torn apart and fear of the very institutions meant to protect – not persecute – our people.” 

California Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement that the decision from the high court will cause “racial terror in Los Angeles.” 

“Trump’s private police force now has a green light to come after your family — and every person is now a target — but we will continue fighting these abhorrent attacks on Californians,” Newsom, a Democrat, said.

Temporary ruling

The ruling responded to an emergency appeal the administration made to the court last month, seeking to put on hold a temporary restraining order from Central California U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong. 

The case in the lower court is ongoing.

The lower court blocked immigration agents from using “apparent ethnicity” as a method for determining if an individual violated immigration law. 

Agents used a broad variety of factors to determine someone’s apparent ethnicity, including speaking Spanish or accented English, certain types of work and locations such as bus stops or car washes.

Kavanaugh also said that the civil rights groups and individuals targeted by immigration agents who brought the suit against the Department of Homeland Security lacked legal standing for the challenge “to seek a broad injunction restricting immigration officers from making these investigative stops.”

‘Fair game to be seized at any time’

Sotomayor penned the dissent, criticizing Monday’s order for violating Fourth Amendment rights and allowing Latinos to be racially profiled.

“The Government, and now the concurrence, has all but declared that all Latinos, U. S. citizens or not, who work low wage jobs are fair game to be seized at any time, taken away from work, and held until they provide proof of their legal status to the agents’ satisfaction,” she continued. 

And she questioned Kavanaugh’s assumption that anyone who is a U.S. citizen and is questioned by an immigration officer will simply be let go once their citizenship is explained.

“That blinks reality,” she wrote, noting that two U.S. citizen plaintiffs in the suit tried to explain their citizenship status to an immigration officer. 

“One was then pushed against a fence with his arms twisted behind his back, and the other was taken away from his job to a warehouse for further questioning,” she wrote. 

Sotomayor said the decision would create a second-class citizen status and require people to carry around proof of citizenship or legal status.

She added that the Fourth Amendment “prohibits exactly what the Government is attempting to do here: seize individuals based solely on a set of facts that ‘describe[s] a very large category of presumably innocent’ people.”

“The Fourth Amendment protects every individual’s constitutional right to be ‘free from arbitrary interference by law officers,’” she wrote. “After today, that may no longer be true for those who happen to look a certain way, speak a certain way, and appear to work a certain type of legitimate job that pays very little.”

National Guard responds to protests over tactics

The administration’s mass raids this summer on Los Angeles-area Home Depot stores and other sites where day laborers gather sparked massive protests in the city that were the basis of National Guard troops and U.S. Marines deploying to the city, over Newsom’s objection. 

A federal judge last week said the military members’ conduct violated a law against military personnel conducting domestic law enforcement.

The president has also deployed the National Guard of the District of Columbia and has directed thousands of federal law enforcement officers to set up checkpoints in the city to inquire about immigration status. 

Thousands in the district on Saturday protested the deployment. 

Further deployments?

The president has threatened to send National Guard members to more predominantly Democratic cities such as Baltimore, Chicago, New Orleans, New York, and Portland, Oregon. He has said those deployments would  help contain crime — despite violent crime in those cities decreasing in recent years — while also highlighting immigration enforcement.

Trump over the weekend posted an artificial intelligence-generated image that referenced the Vietnam War film “Apocalypse Now.” 

The image is of Trump in a military uniform in front of the Chicago skyline with flames in the background. 

The caption read: “I love the smell of deportations in the morning… Chicago about to find out why it’s called the Department of WAR,” referring to the new secondary name Trump gave the Defense Department on Friday. 

Speaking at an event at the Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C., Monday morning, Trump said that he “would love to go into Chicago” but was waiting on a request from Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker before he sent troops there. Pritzker, a Democrat, has been adamant that the city did not need or want National Guard troops.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 29, 2024. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration on Monday asked the Supreme Court to overturn a lower court’s ruling and allow it to withhold $4 billion in foreign aid that was previously approved by Congress.

The case is one of many lawsuits challenging the White House’s efforts to supersede Congress’ spending authority by canceling funding without lawmakers’ explicit approval.  

This particular case became more complicated in late August when the Trump administration sent Congress a rescission request, asking lawmakers to cancel billions in foreign aid, including some of the funding subject to this lawsuit. 

This “pocket rescission,” as it’s sometimes called, came within 45 days of the end of the fiscal year. Under the Trump administration’s interpretation of the law, they believe that allows them to cancel the funding even if Congress refuses to go along with the proposal. 

The move is considered illegal by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office and evoked ire from senior lawmakers, including Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine.

“Article I of the Constitution makes clear that Congress has the responsibility for the power of the purse,” Collins wrote in a statement. “Any effort to rescind appropriated funds without congressional approval is a clear violation of the law.”

Administration sees executive branch ‘at war with itself’

The appeal to the Supreme Court filed Monday urges the justices to let the legislative and executive branches figure out the spending dispute on their own and criticizes a federal district court for ordering the Trump administration to spend the money. 

“The injunction requires the Executive Branch to rush to obligate the same $4 billion that the President has just proposed rescinding between now and September 30, and thus puts the Executive Branch at war with itself,” wrote Solicitor General D. John Sauer. “Just as the President is pressing for rescission and explaining to Congress that obligating these funds would harm U.S. foreign policy interests, his subordinates are being forced to proceed to identify and even negotiate with potential recipients.”

The pocket rescissions request at the center of this case is separate from the one Trump sent Congress in early June that asked members to eliminate funding for numerous foreign aid accounts and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Lawmakers approved that proposal in July after preserving full funding for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR.

Congress has yet to act on the second rescissions request as its leaders look for ways to fund the government ahead of an Oct. 1 shutdown deadline. 

Attorneys for the organizations that brought the lawsuit — the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and Global Health Council — wrote in a brief to the Supreme Court submitted Monday that they opposed the Trump administration’s request to overturn the lower court’s preliminary injunction. 

“USAID and the State Department have been under a duty to obligate these funds since at least March 2024, when Congress enacted the appropriations; they chose not to act sooner,” they wrote. “The government faces no cognizable harm from having to take steps to comply with the law for the short period while this Court considers its stay application.”

A courtroom and a judge's gavel. (Getty Images creative)

The Milwaukee County judge accused of helping a man evade arrest by federal immigration authorities this spring is set to go to trial in December. 

Judge Hannah Dugan, who has been charged with federal felony and misdemeanor counts, said on Wednesday she would not appeal a U.S. District Court judge’s decision not to dismiss the case against her — though she reserved the right to appeal later. On Wednesday, federal Judge Lynn Adelman scheduled Dugan’s trial to begin Dec. 15. 

Dugan’s case has become a national example of the Trump administration’s effort to crack down on officials in other branches of government at the local, state and federal levels who are perceived as working against Trump’s aggressive immigration policies. Her April arrest drew widespread condemnation as a threat to judicial independence and criticism of federal Department of Justice officials for publicizing the case before she was even indicted. 

The case stems from what federal prosecutors allege was a deliberate attempt to conceal Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a 30-year-old Mexican immigrant, from federal authorities. Flores-Ruiz was in Dugan’s courtroom for an appearance in a misdemeanor battery case against him when federal agents arrived with an administrative warrant — which only allowed the agents to operate in the public areas of the Milwaukee County courthouse, not within Dugan’s courtroom. 

Dugan directed Flores-Ruiz and his attorney out a side door of the courtroom, which led them to the same hallway where the agents were standing but not directly past them. An agent rode down in the elevator with Flores-Ruiz and he was later arrested on the street.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

With a new law cutting Medicaid funding to certain clinics, Planned Parenthood estimates 200 of its clinics in 24 states are at risk of closure with the cuts, and nearly all of those clinics — 90% — are in states where abortion is legal. (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

A federal judge ruled Friday against the Trump administration’s efforts to strip Medicaid funds from primarily Planned Parenthood-affiliated abortion providers.

Massachusetts U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani denied the federal government’s motion to lift a block on a new law, rejecting the U.S. Department of Justice’s argument that allowing Planned Parenthood to continue to bill for Medicaid while their lawsuit plays out would cause the government “irreparable injury.” She said the plaintiffs were more likely to suffer injury if the provision went into effect, such as having to close clinics and reduce services.

“Here, Defendants suffer no irreparable harm where Plaintiffs are substantially likely to succeed in establishing that Section 71113 violates several constitutional provisions,” Talwani wrote in an order, denying the federal government’s request to stay two preliminary injunctions. “[I]t is precisely because Congress targeted only a ‘certain’ group of entities for exclusion from Medicaid programs — all but two of which are Planned Parenthood Federation Members — that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in establishing that Section 71113 is unconstitutional.”

Late last month Talwani ordered a partial and then a full preliminary injunction after Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its Massachusetts and Utah affiliates sued in early July over the new federal reproductive health restriction. After unsuccessfully asking the district court to lift the block, the federal government appealed the preliminary injunctions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Shortly after, the DOJ filed a motion asking the district court to reconsider the preliminary injunctions. Last week, the appellate court declined the government’s request, pending the district court’s decision. Defendants are now expected to re-appeal the injunction to the First Circuit. 

The provision, set to expire July 4, 2026, would primarily affect health clinics affiliated with Planned Parenthood, which has estimated it could lose 200 of its 600 clinics, many of which are in rural areas and others that are critical abortion-access points. 

But two other affected organizations are Health Imperatives in Massachusetts, which according to WBUR, operates seven clinics and serves about 10,000 patients, and Maine Family Planning, which has also sued over the provision. On Monday, U.S. District Judge Lance Walker in Maine, an appointee of President Donald Trump, denied Maine Family Planning’s motion for a preliminary injunction, despite the organization facing losses up to nearly $2 million, potential layoffs, and disruption of care for about 8,000 patients.

“This ruling is a devastating setback for Mainers who depend on us for basic primary care,” said George Hill, president and CEO of Maine Family Planning, according to Maine Morning Star. “The loss of Medicaid funds — which nearly half our patients rely on — threatens our ability to provide life-saving services to communities across the state. Mainers’ health should never be jeopardized by political decisions, and we will continue to fight for them.”

Does the new federal Medicaid rule unlawfully target Planned Parenthood?

Federal funding of abortion is already prohibited in most cases under the Hyde Amendment. But the new funding rule would bar from the Medicaid program reproductive health clinics that provide abortions and received more than $800,000 in federal and state Medicaid funding in fiscal year 2023 for health services like birth control, cancer and gender-affirming care. 

The legislation has caused confusion throughout the Planned Parenthood network because its definition of “prohibited entity” includes a barred organization’s “affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, and clinics.”

The nonprofit health network comprises its national membership and advocacy organization, PPFA, and nearly 50 independently structured and operated affiliates, some of which do not offer abortion, such as co-plaintiff Planned Parenthood Association of Utah. These organizations are reimbursed after the fact for specific health services covered by Medicaid. 

Even though the provision is currently blocked, several Planned Parenthood clinics around the country have already closed, both because of the new rule and the Trump administration’s other restrictions stripping abortion providers of federal family planning grants. 

Many of the recently shuttered clinics did not provide abortion, like in Ohio, and some are in states where abortion is illegal, like in Louisiana. 

Planned Parenthood’s attorneys have argued that the new federal Medicaid rule violates their equal protection, speech and association rights, because it excludes their clinics from the Medicaid program on the basis of their association to other organizations — in this case organizations that provide abortions and advocate for abortion rights.

“[S]ince this Court issued its decision, the government has now admitted that Section 71113 (the “Defund Provision”) was intended to punish Planned Parenthood for its ‘political advocacy,’” the plaintiffs wrote in a recent brief opposing defendants’ motion to lift the injunction. 

Plaintiffs referred to a recent public statement made by Andrew G. Nixon, a spokesperson for co-defendant U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

“States should not be forced to fund organizations that have chosen political advocacy over patient care,” Nixon said, after the district court’s initial preliminary injunction on July 22. 

But in court, the federal government argued the tax and spending cuts law excludes large abortion providers only because they provide abortions. They say they are also excluding smaller or non-abortion-providing affiliates, not because of their speech or advocacy, but because of their “non-expressive activities of corporate control and financing.” Their basic argument is that money to any Planned Parenthood clinic — even for health services unrelated to abortion — is money for abortion. 

“[B]ecause money is fungible, extending the funding restriction to affiliates prevents an organization from undermining federal policy not to subsidize abortion providers by shifting funds between entities that do not perform abortions and entities that do,” defendants wrote.  

The DOJ has also rejected plaintiffs’ claim that the federal legislation is a bill of attainder, which refers to legislation that unconstitutionally imposes punishment on a specific person or group of people without a judicial trial. 

“Halting the flow of federal Medicaid funds to those entities bears no resemblance to the forms of punishment that implicate the Bill of Attainder Clause,” reads the DOJ’s motion. “Historically, bills of attainder involved punishments such as ‘death,’ ‘banishment,’ and ‘imprisonment.’”

But Talwani disagrees with the DOJ’s reasoning.

“[T]here is no indication in the record that Planned Parenthood Members share revenues from Medicaid reimbursements,” she wrote. “The result is a restriction on associational freedom that is in no way ‘essential to the furtherance of [Defendants’] interest’ in withholding funds from certain abortion providers … and instead imposes a wholly unwarranted burden.”

While the new federal tax and spending cuts law does not mention Planned Parenthood by name, a bill introduced this year with similar language is explicitly titled, “Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2025.” Meanwhile, several state legislatures have successfully stripped funding from the organization. The U.S. Supreme Court allowed South Carolina to exclude Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program in late June after a long legal fight, but the state’s affiliate just sued again over Medicaid eligibility.

“You have to be living in a cave to believe this isn’t about Planned Parenthood,” said abortion law expert Mary Ziegler. “The reason Planned Parenthood is a target is because it’s a twofer. It’s both the nation’s largest abortion provider and also the nation’s best advocate for abortion rights. … But I think the problem for Planned Parenthood is that disaggregating the two is hard, and proving congressional intent to target one rather than the other is challenging.”

Anti-abortion activists and conservative commentators have accused Talwani, an Obama appointee, of judicial activism.

“Now the abortion industry is suing to block the will of the voters, duly passed by Congress,” wrote Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, in a recent op-ed for National Review. “They argue they’re constitutionally entitled to our tax dollars in perpetuity, and they’ve found a single activist judge willing to take their side and impose that view on the entire nation — for now.”

Ziegler said the bill of attainder argument is rarely used, but is plausible in this case. 

“Generally, with a bill of attainder, you have to show that there’s no other kind of valid legislative purpose, and that it’s selectively targeting the person who’s suing,” she said. “In this case, it seems pretty clear that there’s some targeting of Planned Parenthood happening. … But I think there being no other purpose is more complicated.”

Ziegler said the case will likely be hard to win if it gets to the majority conservative Supreme Court. But if the injunction holds, Planned Parenthood could run out the clock on the one-year Medicaid restriction. She thinks it might seem too politically risky to renew this provision right before the 2026 midterm elections to more moderate Republicans in the House, like Rep. Mike Lawler of New York, who told NOTUS in May, “from the standpoint of providing health care to women, you know, I’m not for taking away people’s health care.”

“They’ll either have to say, ‘All our boasts about defunding Planned Parenthood were not real, because Planned Parenthood is going to get funded again,’ or they’re going to have to make the funding prohibition permanent, which could have the consequences that people like Lawler were afraid of.”

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters to get our investigative stories and Friday news roundup. This story is published in partnership with The Associated Press.

A conservative justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court said Friday that she will not seek reelection, creating an open race for a seat on the court that’s controlled 4-3 by liberals.

Justice Rebecca Bradley’s decision not to run for a second full term comes after conservative candidates for the highest court in the battleground state have lost each of the past two elections by double-digit margins. Both of those races broke national spending records and the liberal won in April despite heavy spending by billionaire Elon Musk.

Liberal state Supreme Court candidates have won four of the past five races, resulting in them taking over the majority in 2023, breaking a 15-year run of conservative control. Regardless of who wins the April election, liberals will maintain their 4-3 court majority until at least 2028. If they can win next year, their majority would increase to 5-2.

The open race comes as several high-profile issues could make their way to the Wisconsin Supreme Court in the coming months, including abortion, collective bargaining rights, congressional redistricting and election rules.

Chris Taylor, a state appeals court judge and former Democratic state lawmaker, is the only announced candidate.

Bradley had said in April that she planned to run again, but ultimately changed her mind.

“I will not seek reelection to the Wisconsin Supreme Court because I believe the best path for me to rebuild the conservative movement and fight for liberty is not as a minority member of the Court,” she said in a statement.

Bradley said her warnings about the court being controlled by “judicial activists” went unheeded “and Wisconsin has seen only the beginning of what is an alarming shift from thoughtful, principled judicial service toward bitter partisanship, personal attacks, and political gamesmanship that have no place in court.”

“The conservative movement needs to take stock of its failures, identify the problem, and fix it,” she said.

Bradley, 54, was appointed to the Supreme Court by then-Gov. Scott Walker in 2015 and won election to a full 10-year term in 2016. Before joining the court, Bradley had served three years as a Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge and a year as a state appeals court judge.

Bradley was a reliable conservative voice on the court, dissenting on a July ruling that found an 1849 Wisconsin law did not ban abortions. Another case, brought by Planned Parenthood that seeks to make abortion a constitutional right, has been accepted by the court, but a date for oral arguments has not been set.

When conservatives had the majority, Bradley voted to uphold the Act 10 law that effectively ended collective bargaining rights for most state workers. A new challenge to that law is in the state appeals court and could go before the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Bradley also voted with conservative justices in a 2020 case brought by President Donald Trump in a failed attempt to overturn his loss in Wisconsin that year. The court ruled 4-3 against Trump.

And she sided with the conservative majority in a ruling banning absentee ballot drop boxes that was later overturned by the liberal-controlled court.

Conservative Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley won’t run for re-election in 2026 is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

In a statement sent to WisPolitics, Bradley said she is seeking to "rebuild the conservative movement."

The post Justice Rebecca Bradley will not seek reelection, setting up wide open Wisconsin Supreme Court race appeared first on WPR.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley announced Friday she will not run for re-election next year. 

Bradley, the most right-wing of the Court’s three conservative justices, has been outspoken in her dislike of the Court’s current liberal majority, regularly complaining in written decisions and the press about the Court’s actions. Bradley is an active member of the right-wing Federalist Society and has been rumored to be interested in a federal judicial seat. 

“For years I have warned that under the control of judicial activists, the court will make itself more powerful than the Legislature, more powerful than the governor,” Bradley said in a statement. “That warning went unheeded, and Wisconsin has seen only the beginning of what is an alarming shift from thoughtful, principled judicial service toward bitter partisanship, personal attacks, and political gamesmanship that have no place in court. The conservative movement needs to take stock of its failures, identify the problem, and fix it.”

Bradley was appointed to the Court by Gov. Scott Walker in 2015 and elected to a 10-year term in 2016. She was part of the conservative majority that upheld the actions by Republican legislators to take power away from the governor and attorney general during the lame duck period after Democrats won those seats in the 2018 election. 

She also authored the Court’s 2021 decision creating the “least change” standard for drawing the state’s new legislative maps. That decision was widely seen as an effort by the Court’s conservatives to ensure that whatever maps were instituted largely kept the Republican’s 2011 partisan gerrymander intact. 

Bradley’s decision not to run comes just 221 days before the April 7 spring election, putting the state’s conservatives, who have lost the two most recent Supreme Court elections by double digits, at a disadvantage. 

State Appeals Court Judge Chris Taylor announced her run for the Court in May. Taylor’s July campaign finance report shows she’s already raised more than $580,000.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Former Dane County Judge James Troupis appears in court on Dec. 12. He faces felony forgery charges for his role in developing the 2020 false elector scheme to overturn the election results for Donald Trump. (Screenshot | WisEye)

A Dane County judge ruled last week that the criminal cases will be allowed to continue against two former attorneys and a campaign staff member of President Donald Trump for orchestrating the scheme to have Wisconsin Republicans cast false Electoral College votes for Trump in 2020. 

John D. Hyland denied the motion to dismiss in an Aug. 22 order. Last year, Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul filed criminal charges against Kenneth Cheseboro, Jim Troupis and Mike Roman. 

Cheseboro, a Wisconsin native, was one of the main planners of the false elector scheme. The scheme led to Electoral College votes being cast for Trump in seven states and began the series of events that led to the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Troupis, a former Dane County judge, worked as an attorney for the Trump campaign. Roman allegedly delivered the false paperwork from Wisconsin Republicans to the staff member of a Pennsylvania congressman in order to get them to Vice President Mike Pence on Jan. 6. 

The three men each face 11 criminal charges related to felony forgery. Each charge carries a maximum penalty of six years in prison and a $10,000 fine. 

“Troupis does not show that the First Amendment protects the right to commit forgery, does not show that the government violated his right to due process by entrapping him into that forgery, and does not show prosecutors must exercise discretion to charge an accused of his preferred offense,” Hyland wrote in his order denying the motion to dismiss.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Gov. Tony Evers implementing pay raises for state employees that were approved in the state budget without additional approval from the Legislature’s Joint Committee for Employment Relations. Evers signed the budget, now 2025 Wisconsin Act 15, at 1:32 a.m. in his office Thursday, less than an hour after the Assembly passed it. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Gov. Tony Evers is implementing pay raises for state employees without additional approval from the Legislature’s Joint Committee for Employment Relations, citing a recent state Supreme Court ruling.

The state budget, which was passed by the Republican-led Legislature and signed by Evers last month, included about $385 million to provide state and University of Wisconsin employees with a 3% pay increase in the first year of the budget and a 2% increase in the second year.

“I fought hard in our bipartisan budget negotiations to secure much deserved pay increases for our talented state workers,” Evers wrote in a letter to state employees on Monday, adding that he was proud to sign the budget last month and it was important to him that state workers receive the wage adjustment as soon as possible.

Eligible employees will receive the 3% base pay adjustment to their current pay rate with their Sept. 4 paychecks, including a lump sum back pay from June 29. The second year of raises is supposed to be implemented June 28, 2026.

“The work that we do together every day on behalf of the people of Wisconsin is so important — perhaps never more so than it is today,” Evers wrote. “With Washington creating continued uncertainty through devastating cuts to investments and programs that so many across our state rely on, Wisconsinites will continue looking to us to lead, support them and build upon the work we’ve done together over the last six years. There is, as always, much hard work ahead of us. Having committed and exceptional partners like you in this good work will make all the difference.” 

The Joint Committee on Employment Relations has been tasked by state law with holding hearings on changes to state employee compensation and approving those changes. Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) and Senate President Mary Felzkowski (R-Tomahawk) and Co-chairs of the Joint Committee of Employment Relations have not responded to requests for comment on Evers’ announcement. 

In a bulletin about the raises, the Department of Administration cited the recent Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling in the case Tony Evers v. Howard Marklein, which addressed the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program and the ability of the Joint Finance Committee to hold up already appropriated funds. The Evers administration asserted that the decision clarified its authority to implement the raises without the additional approval of the committee.

The Court ruled 6-1 in July 2024 that the ability for the committee to withhold funds was unconstitutional and a violation of the separation of powers. 

Justice Rebecca Bradley wrote for the majority that a statute that authorizes lawmakers to “exercise core powers of the executive branch violates the constitutional separation of powers and cannot be enforced under any circumstances.” 

“While the constitution gives the legislature the power to appropriate funds, the power to spend the funds the legislature has appropriated for a specific project belongs to the executive branch,” Bradley wrote. “While the legislature has the power to create an agency, define its powers, and appropriate funds to fulfill the purpose for which the legislature established it, the power to spend appropriated funds in accordance with the law enacted by the legislature lies solely within the core power of the executive to ensure the laws are faithfully executed. We conclude these statutes interfere with the executive branch’s core function to carry out the law by permitting a legislative committee, rather than an executive branch agency, to make spending decisions for which the legislature has already appropriated funds and defined the parameters by which those funds may be spent.”

The original lawsuit filed by Evers in October 2023 included the Knowles-Nelson program and two other issues: JOCER’s ability to withhold raises approved in the budget and the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules’s block on administrative rules related to conversion therapy. At the time, JOCER was withholding pay raises approved in the budget for University of Wisconsin employees, so the raises could be used as a bargaining chip in Republican lawmakers’ efforts to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in the system. The pay raises, approved in the budget in July, were released by JOCER in December 2023. 

The majority decided in February 2024 that it would only take up the Knowles-Nelson issue and leave the other two “held in abeyance pending further order of the court.” Conservative justices were critical of the majority allowing original action in the case and separating the issues from each other at the time.

Justice Annette Zeigler wrote in her dissenting opinion in the case that taking all of the issues at once could have produced consistency. 

“Selecting an issue that only impacts the Republican-controlled legislature and the longstanding Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program should raise eyebrows,” Zeigler wrote. “Determining all issues at the same time could serve to hold my colleagues to application of the same principles in the same way, even when it comes to a Democratic-controlled branch of government. Unfortunately, we will wait to see if that consistency will be forthcoming, as the majority handpicked and now limits only the legislative branch’s longstanding, statutorily authorized practice.”

The Court dismissed the compensation and Joint Committee on Employment Relations issue in October 2024 when it decided to take up the conversion therapy and Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules issue. The Court issued a ruling in July limiting the committee’s ability to block administrative rules.

The University of Wisconsin system will also be implementing the general wage raises. 

“We are grateful to Governor Tony Evers and the Wisconsin State Legislature for their continued support of our workforce and recognition of the vital role our faculty and staff play in education, research, and public service,” UW President Jay Rothman wrote in a memo to employees on Monday. 

The implementation of the raises is not the first time the administration has moved ahead with releasing funds following the ruling. The administration announced funding for 12 Department of Natural Resources projects under the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program in October of 2024.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

In their latest attempts to make Wisconsin's congressional voting map more favorable to Democrats ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, liberal law firms are pushing for an untested process first created by Republican state lawmakers in 2011.

The post In push for new Wisconsin congressional map, liberal firms invoke process created by GOP appeared first on WPR.

Reading Time: 2 minutes

This month, for the first time in 30 years, the Wisconsin Supreme Court is without Justice Ann Walsh Bradley. It is also without one of its most consistent advocates for transparency in government. 

Bradley served three 10-year terms on the court, the last of which expired July 31. During this time, she wrote nearly 600 opinions, including quite a few that contained important interpretations of Wisconsin’s open records and meetings laws.

In a 1996 opinion, Bradley rejected the argument that open records and meetings lawsuits had to be preceded by 120 days notice. Bradley, writing for a unanimous court, said the laws require “timely access to the affairs of government.” 

In 2007, Bradley’s majority opinion in Buswell v. Tomah Area School District strengthened the public notice requirements of the state’s open meetings law. That case required meeting notices to be more specific about the subject matter of topics to be discussed, to better inform the public. 

In another majority opinion in 2008, Bradley provided some clarity as to when “quasi-governmental corporations” are subject to the open meetings law. In that case, the Beaver Dam city economic development office had closed, then was immediately replaced by a private corporation that continued to use city offices and receive tax dollars. Bradley’s opinion concluded that because the corporation still resembled the government in function, purpose and effect, it had to follow the laws.

Not every opinion written by Bradley was for the majority. In 2017, she dissented from a decision to exempt from disclosure unredacted immigration detainer forms sent by the Milwaukee County jail to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Her opinion methodically rejected the county’s arguments in favor of redaction, arguing that “continuous ‘chipping away’ has substantially gutted Wisconsin’s commitment to open government.” 

Just one year later, Bradley dissented again, this time from an opinion that denied a public union’s request for certification forms. “The unfounded speculation that the records might be used for improper purposes,” she wrote, “does not outweigh the strong public interest in opening the records to inspection.”

Regardless of whether Bradley wrote a majority, dissenting or concurring opinion, she always emphasized the strong public policy in favor of open government set forth in Wisconsin’s open records and open meetings laws. And she condemned decisions that paid only “lip service” to these principles, calling them “all hat and no cattle.” 

Bradley even had occasion to apply open government principles to the Wisconsin Supreme Court itself. In 2012, she opposed its 4-3 decision to close some of the court’s rules and operations conferences to the public. As reported by Wisconsin Watch at the time, Bradley questioned the change, asking, “What is the good public policy reason to exclude the public from this process? I can’t think of any.” 

In 2017, Bradley was one of two justices who voted against closing all such conferences. (Fortunately, in 2023, a newly constituted court decided to reopen its conferences, with Bradley in the majority.)

Bradley told Wisconsin Lawyer magazine that she intends to stay engaged with organizations that support law and civics education. Her dedication to open government in these endeavors should serve her well, as it has the citizens of Wisconsin for three decades.

Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (wisfoic.org), a nonprofit, nonpartisan group dedicated to open government. Christa Westerberg is the council’s vice president and a partner at the Pines Bach law firm in Madison. Heather Kuebel contributed research to this column.

Your Right to Know: Ann Walsh Bradley and the cause of openness is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Susan Crawford, formerly a Dane County judge, was elected to her first 10-year term on the bench in April.

The post Susan Crawford sworn in to Wisconsin Supreme Court, cementing yearslong liberal majority appeared first on WPR.

Reading Time: 4 minutes

Elections in Wisconsin are setting new spending records every year, but the U.S. Supreme Court appears set to allow even more money into political races across the country if it rules the way experts expect it to in a pending case.

A case brought to the court by Republican plaintiffs in December seeks to abolish limits on coordinated campaign expenditures – money political parties spend in collaboration with candidates. The court’s June decision to hear a challenge to its decades-old precedent speaks to the conservative majority’s distaste for regulating campaign finance, experts say.

“We know where this thing is going because of how the (Chief Justice John) Roberts’ court has dealt with campaign finance restrictions,” said Anthony Chergosky, a political science professor at UW-La Crosse.

The Supreme Court will reconsider its 2001 decision, which ruled that limits on coordinated campaign expenditures are constitutional. The limits apply to shared expenses between party and candidate, such as advertising costs.

Undoing these limits “would open a new, significant way for political parties to spend in direct support of their candidates’ campaigns,” Chergosky said.

In Wisconsin, parties coordinating with U.S. Senate candidates can spend up to about $600,000 in a general election campaign before the limits kick in, according to the Federal Elections Commission. Nationwide, limits vary from $127,200 to $3,946,100 based on the state’s voting age population. For U.S. House nominees in states with more than one representative, which includes Wisconsin, the spending cap is about $63,000.

The Republican plaintiffs – which include the National Republican Congressional Committee, Vice President J.D. Vance and former Rep. Steve Chabot – filed their case in 2022 and went to the Supreme Court after a federal appeals court upheld the spending limits.

The court will likely hear the case in the fall and release a decision in 2026 just as U.S. midterm elections kick into gear, according to a SCOTUSblog analysis. All eight of Wisconsin’s U.S. House members will face reelection, though neither senator will.

The limits the court will review only apply to federal elections for president or Congress, said Brendan Glavin, the research director for OpenSecrets, a Washington-based watchdog that tracks lobbying and campaign finance data. The limits do not apply to state-level candidates.

But “even with the limit, people can still give quite a lot of money to the party, and the party is still allowed to make independent expenditures,” Glavin said. “It’s not like anybody’s being shut down.”

Even if the Supreme Court struck down these limits, federal contribution caps would still apply. This year and next, the federal limits on how much an individual can give to a candidate committee is $3,500 per election. Individuals are also limited to a yearly donation of about $44,000 to a national party committee, according to the FEC.

But the coordinated campaign expenditure limits seal a loophole, Glavin said. The limits prevent donors from circumventing individual contribution caps by donating to a party that can essentially earmark the money for a specific candidate.

“When you take these coordinated limits away, then you’re essentially providing a bit of an end run around the contribution limits for an individual,” said Glavin. However, the Republican challenge “does fit into a broader trend of what we’ve seen over time.”

Campaign finance reform, including limits on coordinated campaign expenditures, were taken up in the 1970s and expanded in 2002, Glavin said. Since then, the reforms have been incrementally rolled back through court decisions like Citizens United v. F.E.C., the 2010 Supreme Court case that paved the way for unlimited political spending organizations called Super PACs.

Reversing the law isn’t likely to affect dark money or Super PAC spending, Glavin said. But you’d likely see more candidates and parties approaching a donor together.

“One ask, one check, that’s an easier way to get the donor,” Glavin said.

Thus, overruling precedent in this case would “tilt the balance of power back in favor of party committees,” Chergosky said. Though partisan loyalty is strong, Chergosky explained, party organizations have seen their influence weaken in light of outside groups like Super PACs.

Though none of Wisconsin’s U.S. Senate seats will be in play next year, Wisconsin’s 3rd Congressional District is set to be one of the most expensive House races in the 2026 cycle, Chergosky said.

The race will likely be a rematch between Republican incumbent Rep. Derrick Van Orden of Prairie du Chien and Democratic challenger Rebecca Cooke of Eau Claire, both of whom are “exceptional fundraisers,” Chergosky said.

As the number of competitive seats continues to decline, an “enormous amount of money gets funneled into fewer and fewer districts,” Chergosky said. But regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision, there won’t be a shortage of money spent in the 3rd District, he said.

Wisconsin law provides an interesting contrast, Chergosky said. Here, state law limits how much individuals can give directly to candidates, but it does not limit the amount individuals can give to parties, nor does it limit how much party committees can give to state-level candidates.

“The comparison to the Wisconsin law is interesting because that has really motivated donors to give to state parties in a way that we just haven’t seen at the national level,” Chergosky said.

The piles of cash that fuel state and national politics has encouraged some Wisconsin legislators to propose resolutions amending the U.S. Constitution.

A Republican-backed proposal calls for an amendment that would also allow states to regulate spending in elections. A Democratic proposal calls for an advisory referendum to appear on Wisconsin ballots; it would ask voters whether they approve of amending the Constitution in order to reverse the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United.

If two-thirds of the state legislatures in the country request it, Congress can convene to consider amending the Constitution. The joint resolutions, if successful, are necessary if Wisconsin wants Congress to convene a constitutional convention. A joint resolution must pass both chambers of the state Legislature; the governor’s signature is not required.

Lawmakers last acted on the Democrats’ proposal in May, and the most recent action on the Republican proposal was in June.

This article first appeared on The Badger Project and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

The Badger Project is a nonpartisan, citizen-supported journalism nonprofit in Wisconsin.

Wisconsin’s cash-flooded elections could get even more expensive is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Emil Bove, President Donald Trump's nominee to be a judge for the 3rd Circuit, testifies during his Senate Judiciary Committee nomination hearing on June 25, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Despite a walkout from Democrats, Senate Republicans tasked with vetting nominees to the federal bench on Thursday claimed to advance President Donald Trump’s former criminal defense attorney, Emil Bove, one step closer to a spot on the U.S. Appeals Court that handles cases in Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

A spokesperson for Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, who chairs the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, told States Newsroom the panel approved Bove’s nomination in a 12-0 vote — that is, despite panel rules that state “at least two members of the minority” must be present to transact committee business. The Iowa Republican’s office did not immediately respond to a follow-up question about committee rules.

In a show of opposition, all Democratic members of the panel, with the exception of Democratic Sen. Cory Booker, stood up and left as Republicans on the panel cast “aye” votes to push Bove’s nomination to the full Senate.

Booker, of New Jersey, refused to stop speaking as Grassley called the vote.

“You are a decent man. Why are you doing this?” Booker protested.

In a post on social media following the meeting, Josh Sorbe, press secretary for the committee’s minority, wrote: “Shameful day in Senate Judiciary. Republicans broke numerous committee rules, ignored privileged motions, denied debate, and rushed through judicial nominees without real vetting. Sen. BOOKER admonished them for it, and Democrats denied quorum and walked out.”

Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the top Democrat on the panel, later issued a statement acknowledging the vote took place, but maintained Senate Republicans broke committee rules by ignoring Booker’s request for further debate and moving ahead with the vote.

“Chairman Grassley claimed that he was following Committee precedent. This is simply untrue,” Durbin said. 

Questions about bribery charges, Jan. 6

Senate Democrats, former judges and advocates opposed Bove’s nomination over what they describe as unethical behavior, including questions about his role as a top Department of Justice official in the dismissal of federal bribery charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams and in the firing of prosecutors who worked on cases probing the Jan. 6, 2021, storming of the U.S. Capitol.

Critics also pointed to recent whistleblower accusations that Bove suggested ignoring a federal court order limiting Trump’s mass deportation campaign.

Bove represented Trump in his multiple federal criminal cases in 2023 and 2024, as well as in a New York state trial that ended in Trump’s conviction on 34 felonies for falsifying business records.

Trump appointed Bove as acting attorney general on his first day in office, and Bove shifted to principal associate deputy upon Attorney General Pam Bondi’s confirmation.

Bove’s nomination to a lifetime appointment on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit has been overshadowed by a whistleblower’s account alleging Bove told subordinates to consider defying a federal court order halting Trump’s deportation flights to El Salvador in March.

Both Bove and acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, another of Trump’s former criminal defense attorneys, deny the allegations.

Grassley said Thursday prior to the vote that allegations against Bove “frankly crossed the line.”

“What we’re witnessing has all the hallmarks of a political hit job,” Grassley said.

Illinois’ Sen. Dick Durbin, the top Democrat on the panel, said in his opening statement Thursday that Bove “should not be seriously considered by the Senate for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench.” 

“He led this administration’s embarrassing efforts to strike a corrupt bargain with New York City Mayor Eric Adams, and he has been trailed by a history of complaints, long predating his affiliation with President Trump, about his temperament, his poor judgment and lack of candor before the court,” Durbin said.

Whistleblower complaint

Durbin and fellow minority committee members requested the panel hear testimony from Erez Reuveni, a former senior DOJ official who filed a whistleblower complaint in which he alleged he was fired for refusing to follow department orders to undermine the courts in Trump’s deportation cases. 

In the complaint submitted to the DOJ inspector general and Congress, Reuveni, who spent 15 years with the department, outlined “a pattern of deliberate defiance of federal court rulings related to immigration enforcement,” according to a summary from the Government Accountability Project and Gilbert Employment Law P.C., which filed the complaint on Reuveni’s behalf.

Lawmakers who viewed the complaint said Reuveni recounted witnessing Bove suggesting the DOJ might need to tell the courts “f— you” in relation to any order blocking the administration from sending planes full of deported migrants to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act.

“Mr. Reuveni has made credible allegations against Mr. Bove, which, if true, clearly disqualify him for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench. Thus, it is imperative that the Committee hear from Mr. Reuveni, under oath, before we vote on Mr. Bove’s nomination,” according to a letter Monday led by Durbin.

Grassley shut down the request Tuesday, writing in a response that documents provided by the minority to support the claim do not “substantiate any misconduct by Mr. Bove.”

“I respect whistleblowers and the whistleblowing process and have taken this matter seriously. I note that the available documents and the public record are inconsistent with some of the whistleblower’s assertions, which have been reviewed in good faith,” Grassley wrote.

Dozens of former judges protest nomination

More than 80 former federal and state judges described Bove’s nomination as a “disservice to the constitution, to law enforcement and to the rule of law” in a letter to Grassley and Durbin Tuesday.

The judges, including former 4th Circuit Judge Michael Luttig, a George H. W. Bush appointee who endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris last year, slammed Bove’s “egregious record of mistreating law enforcement officers, abusing power, and disregarding the law itself,” adding that the allegations disqualify him for the position.

The letter cited Bove’s alleged role in firing Federal Bureau of Investigation agents and DOJ officials who prosecuted those involved in storming the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Trump pardoned all of the nearly 1,600 Jan. 6 defendants on the first night of his second term, including the most violent convicted felons.

The former judges also called Trump’s nomination of his personal defense attorney to a federal judgeship “deeply inappropriate.”

“In fact, when President Trump nominated Bove, he posted on social media that Bove would ‘do anything else that is necessary to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.’ That statement underscores the peril of confirming a nominee whose principal qualification appears to be personal loyalty to the president,” the former judges wrote.

Lena Zwarensteyn, senior director of the fair courts program at The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said the list of concerns over Bove’s nomination “goes on and on and on.”

“I think when it comes down to it, you know, in a lifetime position that requires good judgment, wise discretion, good temperament and the dedication to the rights of all, Mr. Bove fails on every single one of those accounts,” Zwarensteyn told States Newsroom in an interview Wednesday.

GOP Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who announced his retirement after breaking ranks earlier this month on Trump’s budget reconciliation package, said Thursday he found nothing to prove Bove expressed support for Jan. 6 defendants — something that would have been a “red line,” he said.

“The fact of the matter is, I can’t find one piece of evidence where he said that the violent act against police officers were okay or condoned. If you find it, let me know,” Tillis said.

Bove, of Seneca Falls, New York, graduated from Georgetown University Law in Washington, D.C., in 2008. He clerked for Judge Richard J. Sullivan of the Southern District of New York, and Judge Richard C. Wesley, who now sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.

Bove, 44, worked as a federal prosecutor in the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York, and in 2023 became a partner at Blanche Law, the private firm of Todd Blanche.

Tense confirmation hearing

Democratic senators, and in some cases Republicans, peppered Bove with questions and concerns about the numerous misconduct allegations during the Judiciary Committee’s June 25 confirmation hearing.

Booker said he remained worried about a “pattern of behavior” first reported by Politico in February regarding complaints about Bove’s temper from former colleagues in the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York.

“The allegations align with reports about your abuse of power now at the DOJ,” Booker said.

Sen. John Kennedy, a Louisiana Republican, pressed Bove on why the DOJ dismissed the federal corruption case against the New York mayor, who was charged with accepting illegal campaign contributions and luxury travel in exchange for favors.

The Trump administration moved to dismiss the Adams case in February, arguing the case interfered with the mayor’s ability to carry out immigration enforcement in the city. The administration requested a dismissal without prejudice — meaning Adams could be prosecuted again — but a federal judge ultimately dismissed the case in April with prejudice, citing concerns the White House would have leverage over Adams’ policy decisions.

“Do you believe in a higher being?” Kennedy asked Bove.

“It’s a very personal question, Senator, but I do,” Bove responded.

“I want you to look me in the eye and swear to your higher being when you answer this question, did you make a deal, a political deal, and dismiss the charges against Mayor Adams?” Kennedy said.

“Absolutely not,” Bove answered.

Keri Rodrigues, president of the National Parents Union, speaks at a rally on Friday, March 14, 2025, in Washington, D.C, protesting the U.S. Education Department’s mass layoffs and President Donald Trump’s plans to dismantle the agency. (Photo by Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON  — The U.S. Department of Education has emerged as central in the struggle over control of the power of the purse in the nation’s capital.

Democrats in Congress are pushing back hard on the Trump administration’s freeze of $6.8 billion in funds for after-school programs and more at public schools, some of which open their doors a few weeks from now. California alone lost access to $939 million and every state is seeing millions of dollars frozen.

At the same time, the Supreme Court on Monday slammed the door on judicial orders that blocked the dismantling of the 45-year-old agency that Congress created and funds.

The nation’s highest court cleared the way for the administration to proceed, for now, with mass layoffs and a plan to dramatically downsize the Department of Education that President Donald Trump ordered earlier this year.

In her scathing dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that “the majority is either willfully blind to the implications of its ruling or naive, but either way the threat to our Constitution’s separation of powers is grave.”

Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote that the president “must take care that the laws are faithfully executed, not set out to dismantle them.”

“That basic rule undergirds our Constitution’s separation of powers,” she wrote. “Yet today, the majority rewards clear defiance of that core principle with emergency relief.”

Just a day after the Supreme Court’s decision, House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters at a Tuesday press conference that while he hasn’t had a chance to digest the Supreme Court’s order, he also knows that “since its creation, the Department of Education has been wielded by the executive branch.”

“I think that was the intent of Congress, as I understood it back then. We have a large say in that, but we’re going to coordinate that with the White House,” the Louisiana Republican said.

“If we see that the separation of powers is being breached in some way, we’ll act, but I haven’t seen that yet,” he added.

Letters from Democrats on frozen funds

Two letters from Senate and House Democrats demanding the administration release the $6.8 billion in federal funds for various education initiatives also depict the Education Department as a key part of the tussle between the executive branch and Congress.

Just a day ahead of the July 1 date when these funds are typically sent out as educators plan for the coming school year, the department informed states that it would be withholding funding for programs, including before- and after-school programs, migrant education, English-language learning and adult education and literacy, among other initiatives.

Thirty-two senators and 150 House Democrats wrote to Education Secretary Linda McMahon and Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought last week asking to immediately unfreeze those dollars they say are being withheld “illegally.”

“It is unacceptable that the administration is picking and choosing what parts of the appropriations law to follow, and you must immediately implement the entire law as Congress intended and as the oaths you swore require you to do,” the senators wrote in their letter.

The respective top Democrats on the Senate Appropriations Committee and its subcommittee overseeing Education Department funding, Sens. Patty Murray of Washington state and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, led the letter, alongside Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.

In the lower chamber, House Democrats wrote that “without these funds, schools are facing difficult and unnecessary decisions on programs for students and teachers.”

“No more excuses — follow the law and release the funding meant for our schools, teachers, and families,” they added.

Georgia’s Rep. Lucy McBath led the letter, along with the respective top Democrats on the House Committee on Education and Workforce, its subcommittee on early childhood, elementary and secondary education and its panel on higher education and workforce development: Reps. Bobby Scott of Virginia, Suzanne Bonamici of Oregon and Alma Adams of North Carolina.

Democratic attorneys general, governors file suit

Meanwhile, a coalition of 24 states and the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration on Monday over those withheld funds, again arguing that Congress has the power to direct funding.

The states suing include: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state and Wisconsin.

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, both Democrats, also signed onto the suit filed in a Rhode Island federal court.

“Not only does Congress require that Defendants make funds available for obligation to the States, Congress, in conjunction with (Education Department) regulations, also directs the timing of when those funds should be made available,” the coalition wrote.

An analysis earlier in July by New America, a left-leaning think tank, found that the top five school districts with the greatest total funding risk per pupil include those in at least two red states: Montana’s Cleveland Elementary School District, Kester Elementary School District and Grant Elementary School District, along with Oregon’s Yoncalla School District 32 and Texas’ Boles Independent School District.

The think tank notes that program finance data was not available for Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Wisconsin. 

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in an unsigned order to allow President Donald Trump to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration, for now, to proceed with mass layoffs and a plan to dramatically downsize the Education Department ordered earlier this year.

The decision from the nation’s highest court marks a major victory for President Donald Trump, who has sought to overhaul the federal role in education.

The order was unsigned, while Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, indicating a 6-3 decision.

The dissent, authored by Sotomayor, was scathing.

“The majority is either willfully blind to the implications of its ruling or naive,” she wrote. “But either way the threat to our Constitution’s separation of powers is grave.”

The Supreme Court’s order temporarily suspends lower court orders that: forced the agency to reinstate more than 1,300 employees gutted from a reduction in force, or RIF, effort; blocked the department from carrying out Trump’s executive order to dismantle the department; and barred the agency from transferring some services to other federal agencies.

In a statement Monday, Education Secretary Linda McMahon celebrated the decision, saying “today, the Supreme Court again confirmed the obvious: the President of the United States, as the head of the Executive Branch, has the ultimate authority to make decisions about staffing levels, administrative organization, and day-to-day operations of federal agencies.”

“While today’s ruling is a significant win for students and families, it is a shame that the highest court in the land had to step in to allow President Trump to advance the reforms Americans elected him to deliver using the authorities granted to him by the U.S. Constitution,” she said.

“The U.S. Department of Education will now deliver on its mandate to restore excellence in American education. We will carry out the reduction in force to promote efficiency and accountability and to ensure resources are directed where they matter most — to students, parents, and teachers.”

A coalition of teachers, unions and school districts that sued over Trump’s order to eliminate the department and the mass layoffs said they were “incredibly disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the Trump-Vance administration to proceed with its harmful efforts to dismantle the Department of Education while our case moves forward.”

“This unlawful plan will immediately and irreparably harm students, educators and communities across our nation. Children will be among those hurt the most by this decision. We will never stop fighting on behalf of all students and public schools and the protections, services, and resources they need to thrive,” they added.

Challenge from Democratic state AGs, unions

The labor and advocacy coalition and a slew of Democratic attorneys general each sued in March over some of the administration’s most consequential education initiatives.

One of the lawsuits comes from a coalition of Democratic attorneys general in Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state and Wisconsin.

The other lawsuit was brought by the American Federation of Teachers, its Massachusetts chapter, AFSCME Council 93, the American Association of University Professors, the Service Employees International Union and two school districts in Massachusetts.

A Massachusetts federal judge consolidated the lawsuits and granted the states’ and groups’ preliminary injunction in May.

The administration appealed that decision, leading to a June decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit keeping in place the district court’s order.

The Trump administration then asked the Supreme Court to intervene. 

Wisconsin Fair Maps Coalition signs on a table outside the Capitol meeting room where the coalition took testimony opposing a Republican redistricting proposal. (Wisconsin Examiner photo)

A new lawsuit filed this week in Dane County Circuit Court seeks to have Wisconsin’s congressional maps declared an unconstitutional, anti-competitive gerrymander and thrown out. 

The suit, filed Tuesday, is another attempt by Democrats and their allies to have new maps drawn before the 2026 midterm elections. Just a few weeks ago, the Wisconsin Supreme Court declined to hear two challenges to the current congressional districts. 

Republicans currently hold six of the state’s eight congressional districts. Democrats have focused on southern Wisconsin’s First District, currently held by Rep. Bryan Steil, and western Wisconsin’s Third District, currently held by Rep. Derrick Van Orden, as possible targets. 

The current maps were drawn by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and selected by the state Supreme Court, which was at the time controlled by conservatives. In that case, the Court had ruled that any proposed maps must follow a “least change” standard and adhere as closely as possible to the maps installed by Republicans in 2011. 

The new lawsuit was filed at the local level, rather than directly with the Supreme Court as an original action, a slower process but perhaps more likely to be taken up by the Court — which has declined to hear challenges to the congressional maps a handful of times in the last few years, despite the Court’s liberal wing gaining majority control after the 2023 Supreme Court election. 

The new suit was filed by attorneys from voting rights focused Law Forward on behalf of the bipartisan business group Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy Coalition, arguing that the current maps are unconstitutional because they’re anti-competitive. Previous challenges to the maps argued the districts were rigged to benefit the Republican party and violated equal protection laws. 

“Wisconsin’s current congressional plan presents a textbook example of an anti-competitive gerrymander,” the lawsuit states. “Anti-competitive gerrymanders are every bit as noxious to democracy as partisan gerrymanders and racial gerrymanders.”

The lawsuit adds that Wisconsin’s maps are an “anti-competitive gerrymander that artificially suppresses electoral competition.” The suit argues that when the congressional maps were drawn in 2011, the lines were drawn to protect incumbents of both parties. When those maps were largely kept intact by the Supreme Court’s “least change” standard in 2021, the decision to insulate incumbents was carried over. 

“After the Wisconsin Legislature adopted the 2011 congressional map, congressional races over the ensuing decade were, as intended, highly uncompetitive,” the lawsuit states, noting that only one congressional election under those maps was decided by less than 10 percentage points. “The Court’s adoption … of the ‘least change’ congressional map necessarily perpetuated the essential features — and the primary flaws — of the 2011 congressional map, including the 2011 congressional map’s intentional and effective effort to suppress competition.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE