U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to reporters in the Oval Office of the White House on Feb. 3, 2025 in Washington, D.C.  Trump was joined by, left to right, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, former Executive Chairman of Fox Corporation Rupert Murdoch and Oracle CTO Larry Ellison. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Democratic lawmakers argued in a new legal filing this week that President Donald Trump’s sweeping emergency tariffs usurped congressional power, and they urged a federal appellate court to strike down the duties on foreign imports.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is set to hear oral arguments over some of Trump’s tariffs after a lower court blocked them in May. Despite being tied up in court, Trump continued threatening tariffs Wednesday on numerous trading partners, including a 50% import tax on goods from Brazil.

Nearly 200 lawmakers signed onto the amicus brief Tuesday, asserting that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, under which Trump triggered the duties, “does not confer the power to impose or remove tariffs.”

The lawmakers argued that Trump’s unprecedented use of IEEPA violates Article I of the U.S. Constitution that authorizes Congress to “lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises” and “regulate commerce with foreign nations.”

“This reflects the Framers’ interest in ensuring the most democratically accountable branch — the one closest to the People — be responsible for enacting taxes, duties, and tariffs,” wrote the 191 Democratic members of Congress, citing the Federalist Papers, in their 65-page brief.

Congress has “explicitly and specifically” delegated tariff-raising powers to the president, but not under IEEPA, according to the lawmakers.

“Unmoored from the structural safeguards Congress built into actual tariff statutes, the President’s unlawful ‘emergency’ tariffs under IEEPA have led to chaos and uncertainty,” the lawmakers wrote.

‘Economic chaos,’ price hikes cited

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, top Democrat on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, co-led the brief with Oregon’s Sen. Ron Wyden, top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries also co-led, along with Reps. Gregory Meeks of New York, Joe Neguse of Colorado, Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Richard Neal of Massachusetts.

In a statement Wednesday, Shaheen said Trump’s “reckless tariff agenda has caused economic chaos and raised prices for families and businesses across the country at a moment in which the cost of living is far too high.”

“The Trump Administration’s unlawful abuse of emergency powers to impose tariffs ignores that he does not have the authority to unilaterally impose the largest tax increase in decades on Americans. This brief makes clear that IEEPA cannot be used to impose tariffs,” Shaheen said.

May decision

The U.S. Court of International Trade struck down Trump’s emergency tariffs in a May 28 decision, following two legal challenges brought by a handful of business owners and a dozen Democratic state attorneys general.

Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico and Oregon were among the states that brought the suit.

The lead business plaintiff is V.O.S. Selections, a New York-based company that imports wine and spirits from 16 countries, according to its website. Other plaintiffs include 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.

Following an appeal from the White House, the Federal Circuit allowed Trump’s tariffs to remain in place while the case moved forward.

Triple-digit tariff

Trump used IEEPA to declare international trade a national emergency and announced tariffs on nearly every other country on April 2 in what he dubbed as “Liberation Day.”

Tariffs reached staggering levels on major U.S. trading partners, including 46% on Vietnam, 25% on South Korea and 20% on the European Union.

The announcement wiped trillions from markets, which have largely recovered. Trump delayed all but a 10% base tariff for 90 days on every country except China. Trump fueled a trade war with the massive Asian nation, peaking at a 145% tariff rate, but then temporarily settling between 10% and 55%, depending on the good.

Even before Trump shocked the world with his “Liberation Day” announcement, small business owners from around the U.S. told States Newsroom they were bracing for potentially devastating economic effects.

The trade court’s ruling — a pending appeals litigation — does not apply to tariffs Trump imposed under other statutes, including national security-related duties on foreign automobiles, as well as steel and aluminum. Some of the steel tariffs, imposed during Trump’s first term, were left in place under former President Joe Biden.

People gather for a "Save the Civil Service" rally hosted by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) on Feb. 11, the day President Donald Trump signed an executive order calling on DOGE to cut federal jobs. The Supreme Court said Tuesday those cuts could proceed, for now. (Photo by Kent Nishimura/Getty Images)

The U.S. Supreme Court late Tuesday lifted lower court injunctions that had blocked attempts by  President Donald Trump and his DOGE Service to restructure the federal government.

Labor unions, advocates and local governments that sued to block the cuts said the president exceeded his authority with the executive order by moving to dismantle the federal government without congressional approval.

A U.S. District Court judge in Northern California agreed and issued preliminary injunction to stall the executive order while the case was heard. A divided 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision.

But the White House pressed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that Trump’s executive order did not restructure the government but merely called for reductions in force, which it said is within the president’s power.

The Supreme Court agreed in a one-page order Tuesday, saying the government was likely to prevail on its claim and the injunction should be stayed while the case proceeded.

In a sharp, 15-page dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the district court judge had determined that the administration plan would not just cut jobs but would “fundamentally restructure” the federal government. He made a “reasoned determination” that the order should be stayed while the case was heard, she wrote.

“But that temporary, practical, harm-reducing preservation of the status quo was no match for this Court’s demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this President’s legally dubious actions in an emergency posture,” she wrote.

“At bottom, this case is about whether that action amounts to a structural overhaul that usurps Congress’s policymaking prerogatives — and it is hard to imagine deciding that question in any meaningful way after those changes have happened,” she wrote. “Yet, for some reason, this Court sees fit to step in now and release the President’s wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a brief concurrence, said she agreed with Jackson that the president does not have the authority to remake government without congressional approval. But she said the executive order and an implementing memo from the Office of Management and the Office of Personnel Management call for the changes to be “consistent with applicable law,” and it’s for lower courts to determine if they are.

A White House spokesperson called the decision a “another definitive victory” for the Trump administration.

“It clearly rebukes the continued assaults on the President’s constitutionally authorized executive powers by leftist judges who are trying to prevent the President from achieving government efficiency across the federal government,” the spokesperson, Harrison Fields, said in a written statement.

But labor unions, advocates and political leaders say that the decision undermines the value of federal employees, threatens the operation of federal services, and could even endanger American citizens.

In a statement Tuesday evening, the American Federation of Government Employees, along with the rest of the coalition of unions, nonprofits and municipalities bringing the suit against the administration, decried the Supreme Court’s decision as a “serious blow to our democracy.”

The coalition said the decision put “services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy.”

“This decision does not change the simple and clear fact that reorganizing government functions and laying off federal workers en masse haphazardly without any congressional approval is not allowed by our Constitution,” the statement read. “While we are disappointed in this decision, we will continue to fight on behalf of the communities we represent and argue this case to protect critical public services that we rely on to stay safe and healthy.”

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore (D) said that as a state with a high concentration of federal workers, “any action against our federal employees is a direct strike against Maryland’s people and economy.”

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling on AFGE v. Trump will embolden President Trump in his mission to dismantle the federal government and threatens to upend the lives of countless public servants who wake up every day to deliver essential services and benefits that people rely on,” Moore said in a written statement. He noted that thousands of Maryland residents have already been laid off from federal agencies under the Trump administration.

In a post to X on Tuesday evening, U.S. Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-5th) wrote that Trump and OMB Director Russell Vought are continuing to “vilify and traumatize the patriots serving our nation, unconstitutionally reorganizing the federal government.”

“The Supreme Court’s decision today demonstrates that federal employees, their families and livelihoods, and the vital services they provide to the American people are of no concern to the Trump Administration,” Hoyer wrote. “I stand with our federal employees against these attacks.”

U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-8th) said in an X post that the ruling “will give Trump’s wrecking crew more awful ideas about sacking critical federal workers,” referencing layoffs at the National Weather Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who help notify state and local agencies about impending dangerous weather.

U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) added that layoffs could also put Americans at risk by “decimating essential public services” like food inspections and Social Security.

“As Justice Jackson put it in her dissent, ‘this was the wrong decision at the wrong moment, given what little this Court knows about what is actually happening on the ground,’” Van Hollen said in a statment. “She is right. The Court’s decision to allow this damage to be done before ruling on the merits shows how detached they are from the reality of the moment.”

Van Hollen said the administration’s plan “isn’t about efficiency, it’s about rigging the government to only benefit the wealthy and powerful special interests.”

“We are not done fighting in Congress, in the courts, and in our communities to defend the dedicated public servants who go to work on behalf of the American people day in and day out,” he said.

The Feb. 11 executive order directed federal agencies to prepeare for “large-scale reductions in force” and to work with members of the Department of Government Efficiency — the DOGE Service that was run at the time by billionaire Elon Musk — to develop a plan to reduce the size of the workforce. Military personnel were exempted, but virtually every other federal agency was affected.

The order was quickly challenged in court by labor unions, taxpayer and good government groups and by a hafl-dozen local governments: Harris County, Texas, Martin Luther King Jr. County, Washington, and San Francisco City and County, California; and the cities of Chicago, Baltimore, and Santa Rosa, California.

They argued that the goals of the executive order far exceeded the president’s authority to reduce the size of agencies. Under the DOGE plan, they argued to the Supreme Court, “functions across the federal government will be abolished, agencies will be radically downsized from what Congress authorized, critical government services will be lost, and hundreds of thousands of federal employees will lose their jobs.”

“There will be no way to unscramble that egg: If the courts ultimately deem the President to have overstepped his authority and intruded upon that of Congress, as a practical matter there will be no way to go back in time to restore those agencies, functions, and services,” their court filing said.

That was echoed by Jackson, who said the district court judge was in the best position to determine if the president’s order consisted of “minor workforce reductions” or whether it was a massive reorganization that overstepped executive authority.

“With scant justification, the majority permits the immediate and potentially devastating aggrandizement of one branch (the Executive) at the expense of another (Congress), and once again leaves the People paying the price for its reckless emergency-docket determinations,” she wrote.

Maryland Matters is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Maryland Matters maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Steve Crane for questions: editor@marylandmatters.org.

Gov. Tony Evers signed a pair of bipartisan bills Wednesday that could strengthen nuclear power in Wisconsin.

The post Gov. Tony Evers signs bills bolstering nuclear power in Wisconsin appeared first on WPR.

During the 2022–23 school year, book bans occurred in 153 districts across 33 states, according to a PEN America report. (Getty Images)

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that Gov. Tony Evers overstepped his partial veto power by exercising it on a bill to implement new literacy programs in the state. Evers scolded the decision, while lawmakers said it upheld the balance of power and that they plan to release the funds now. 

The decision reverses a lower court, which ruled Evers hadn’t overstepped his power but held that the court did not have the power to compel the Legislature to release the funds. 

The case, Wisconsin State Legislature v. Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, involves 2023 Wisconsin Act 100 — one part of a series of measures meant to support the creation of new literacy programs in Wisconsin. 

In the 2023-25 budget, lawmakers and Evers approved $50 million for new literacy programs but the funding went into a supplemental fund, meaning it required the Republican-led Joint Finance Committee to approve its release to the Department of Public Instruction before it could be used.

2023 Wisconsin Act 20  created an Office of Literacy within the Department of Public Instruction, which would be responsible for establishing an early literacy coaching program and awarding grants to schools. Act 100  was a separate law to create a way for the agency to expend the money transferred by the Joint Committee on Finance.

Evers exercised a partial veto when signing Act 100 into law to expand it from covering a “literacy coaching program” to covering a “literacy program.” The action led to lawmakers withholding the funding, saying he didn’t have the authority to change the law’s purpose, the argument at the center of their subsequent lawsuit. Evers’ administration had argued the bill was an appropriation, and therefore it was within the governor’s powers to partially veto it, and that the Legislature was not within its right to withhold the money.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled the Legislature had not been improperly withholding the funding from DPI and that Act 100 was not an appropriation, so Evers overstepped the boundaries of the veto power given to him in the Wisconsin State Constitution. The decision overturns part of the ruling of a Dane County judge.

The state constitution gives the governor the power to sign or veto bills in full, and a 1930 amendment gave the governor the power to partially veto “appropriation bills.” Wisconsin’s executive partial veto power is one of the strongest in the country, though it has been limited over the last several decades by constitutional amendments and through Court rulings.

The state Supreme Court’s 7-0 ruling Wednesday reigns in Evers’ partial veto power.

Justice Rebecca Bradley wrote in the majority opinion that the bills “did not set aside public funds for a public purpose” but rather “created accounts into which money could be transferred to fund the programs established under Act 19 [the state budget] and Act 20, and it changed other aspects of the ‘literacy coaching program.’”

“The bill, however, does not set aside any public funds; in fact, it expressly states that “$0” was appropriated,” Bradley wrote.  

Bradley said it was within the Legislature’s authority to pass the bills in the way that it did, and the Constitution only gives the governor power to “veto in part only appropriation bills — not bills that are closely related to appropriation bills.”

“Although the executive branch may be frustrated by constitutional limits on the governor’s power to veto non-appropriation bills, the judiciary must respect the People’s choice to impose them,” Bradley wrote. “This court has no authority to interfere with the Legislature’s choices to structure legislation in a manner designed to insulate non-appropriation bills from the governor’s exercise of the partial veto power.” 

Under the ruling, the law will revert to what it was when the Legislature passed it.

Another recent state Supreme Court ruling upheld another of Evers’ partial vetoes that extended school revenue increases for 400 years, though that decision was split. In that ruling, the Supreme Court said lawmakers could avoid the partial veto power by drafting bills separate from appropriation bills. Republican lawmakers have been considering for years ways to limit Evers’ veto power, and it remains an issue of controversy in the current budget process as lawmakers pass bills without funding attached. 

Evers called the Supreme Court decision “unconscionable” and urged lawmakers to release the nearly $50 million.

“Twelve lawmakers should not be able to obstruct resources that were already approved by the full Legislature and the governor to help get our kids up to speed and ensure they have the skills they need to be successful,” Evers said in a statement. “It is unconscionable that the Wisconsin Supreme Court is allowing the Legislature’s indefinite obstruction to go unchecked.” 

Evers said he would accept the Court’s decision.

“A basic but fundamental responsibility of governors and executives is to dutifully comply with decisions of a court and the judiciary, even if — and, perhaps most importantly, when — we disagree,” Evers said. 

Evers said lawmakers failing to release the funds would be “reckless” and “irresponsible.” 

“Stop messing around with our kids and their futures and get it done,” Evers said. 

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) and Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg) said in a joint statement that the ruling is a “rebuke of the Governor’s attempt to break apart a bipartisan literacy-funding bill and JFC’s constitutional authority to give supplemental funding to agencies.”

“While the Governor wanted to play politics with money earmarked for kids’ reading programs, it is encouraging to see the Court put an end to this game,” Vos and LeMahieu said. “Wisconsin families are the real winners here.”

The end of the state’s fiscal year and deadline for getting the next state budget done is June 30, and if the money isn’t released, it will lapse back into the general fund going back to the state’s $4 billion budget surplus.

Co-chairs of the Joint Finance Committee Rep. Mark Born (R-Beaver Dam) and Sen. Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green) said in a joint statement they plan to release the funds now that the Supreme Court has ruled on the issue

“The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision confirmed what we already knew: the Governor’s partial veto of Act 100 was unconstitutional. We are happy to see that the court ruled in favor of the Legislature as a co-equal branch of government and provided us much needed guidance,” the lawmakers said. “Now that there is clarity, we look forward to releasing the $50 million set aside to support kids struggling to read and help implement these important, bipartisan reforms. It is unfortunate that the Governor’s unconstitutional veto has delayed this funding needed by kids and families across the state.”

At a press conference Wednesday afternoon, Democrats on the Joint Finance Committee called for lawmakers to meet before Monday to release the funds. 

“Unless the Joint Finance Committee acts before Monday, those kids and those school districts will not see another dime. Wisconsinites are tired of Republicans playing politics with our public schools,” Rep. Deb Andraca (D-Whitefish Bay) said. She noted that Evers had requested an additional $80 million for literacy in his budget proposal, but lawmakers have so far not included that. 

Republican lawmakers have approved the K-12 portion of the state budget, which includes an increase for the state’s special education reimbursement rate from about 32% to 37.5% and a 90% rate for high cost special education in the second year of the budget, along with funding for other priorities. Democrats and education advocates have been critical, saying that the budgeted amounts are not enough to ease the financial burdens public schools are facing.

Rep. Tip McGuire (D-Kenosha) said Democrats haven’t heard from Republican lawmakers about working on the budget.

“We are ready to work,” Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison) said. “We would like to see immediately some action on the funding that is going to disappear if it’s not spent by June 30th, particularly the literacy funding. The Joint Finance Committee has also refused to release other funds, including $125 million to combat PFAS and $15 million to support Chippewa Valley hospitals.

Roys said it was “great to hear” that the co-chairs said they would release the funds and that she hopes he “stands by his word.” 

State Superintendent Jill Underly also urged the release of the funds, saying part of the compromise struck by Evers and lawmakers was “to provide districts with funding to implement new strategies and change practices” and districts have been working to implement the literacy changes but have yet to see funding.

“It is devastating that despite bipartisan agreement on how to proceed, we have been stuck in neutral,” Underly said. 

Peggy Wirtz-Olsen, president of the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC), the state’s largest teachers’ union, said in a statement that Republican lawmakers are “bent on using schools as pawns for political payback” and are giving “lip service to literacy, while leaving educators without funding to do our job.” 

“On the cusp of another state budget, these same politicians again threaten to underfund public schools instead of working across the aisle for the good of students,” Wirtz-Olsen said, adding that WEAC will continue to advocate for funding from the state.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Assembly Republicans gathered ahead of the floor session to stress the need for bipartisan negotiations and progress on writing the state budget. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

With the state’s budget deadline less than a week away, the Wisconsin State Assembly approved a slate of bills that would create new programs but withheld funding, which Republicans said would come later. Democrats criticized Republicans, saying they couldn’t trust that the funding would actually be passed. The body also approved a pair of bills related to nuclear power and bills that will increase penalties for criminal offenses.

Assembly Republicans gathered ahead of the floor session to stress the need for bipartisan negotiations and progress on writing the state budget.

Budget negotiations fell apart last week for the second time as Senate Republicans walked away from talks with Gov. Tony Evers. Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg) said in a statement at the time that discussions were “heading in a direction that taxpayers cannot afford.” 

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) said during a press conference that he has been in communication with Evers, including on Tuesday morning. 

Vos said the discussions about child care funding are “preliminary” with “a lot of details to be worked out.” He said Assembly Republicans remain “steadfast” in its opposition to “writing checks out to providers” but are open to working with Evers on child care. 

Evers told reporters Monday he wouldn’t sign a budget if it doesn’t include money for child care.

“Republicans need to get their act together and come back and let’s finish it up,” Evers said.

Asked if he would sign a budget that doesn’t include funding for the state’s Child Care Counts program, Evers said “no.” 

Evers has not vetoed a budget in full during his time in office, though he has exercised his partial veto power extensively, rejecting major tax cuts and making changes to extend increases for school revenue – to the great irritation of Republicans.

“I think in the end we’ll be able to find a consensus around that topic,” Vos said about child care funding. 

Vos also said Republicans are already taking some action related to child care. Assembly Republicans have announced measures including a 15% tax credit for the business expenses at child care facilities, no-interest loans and allowing 16-year-olds to be counted as full staff as ways of addressing the crisis.

Evers said discussions about the funding for the University of Wisconsin had included “a positive number” though he wouldn’t go into details. Last week, Vos said his caucus intended to cut $87 million from the UW system. 

“I know we’re going to make investments in trying to make sure that parents have access to child care, I know we’re going to make a historic investment in special ed funding and I know we’re going to do some reforms at the university. Those are all things that we would love to do as part of a bigger deal,” Vos said, adding that legislators have to make sure any plan can get through both the Assembly and the Senate and then to Evers. 

Vos said the most thing thing for Assembly Republicans is getting tax cuts passed and signed by Evers, saying they have learned from previous budgets where tax cuts have been vetoed and other parts of the budget is approved. The budget committee has approved a $1.3 billion tax cut package for the budget bill already.

“It’s better for us to find a compromise,” Vos said. “We’d like to have a guarantee from Gov. Evers that we’re going to get tax cuts signed into law. In exchange, he would like a guarantee that we’re going to have some increases in investments that he cares about.”

Rep. Mark Born (R-Beaver Dam) said he is in communication with Sen. Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green) working on figuring out when the budget committee will meet next.

“We’re hopeful our Senate colleagues will join us in the next couple of days,” Born said.

The deadline for the budget — and end of the fiscal year — is June 30.

“I think if we are actively talking about a budget in the next couple of days, we can hammer out details in a hurry. That’s the way budgets are built. If people are ready to work, we’ll get things done,” Born said. 

Republicans have a slim 18-15 majority in the state Senate, which is leading to some difficulties passing a budget, as their caucus can only lose one vote and still get a budget passed without Democratic votes. Two members — Sen. Chris Kapenga (R-Delafield) and Sen. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater) — have expressed concerns about the budget.

Nass laid out several “benchmarks” that would get him to vote for a budget in a press release Tuesday, including a $3.5 billion one-time tax rebate that would provide $1,600 to joint filers and $800 to individual tax filers, ensuring the new budget doesn’t create a structural deficit and making cuts of $700 million to $1 billion and no more than $1.5 billion in new bonding for buildings.

“I will not support the Vos-Evers budget proposal because it contains too much spending, special interest pork and the creation of a significant structural deficit,” Nass said. “The Vos-Evers budget plan is neither conservative nor taxpayer friendly. However, if passed it would be a big win for the politicians and lobbyists.”

Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison), who is a member of the Joint Finance Committee, called Nass’ proposal “reckless” in a social media post and said Republicans are in “disarray.” 

“It shows that Republicans do not care about maintaining the essential services that Wisconsinites need and want — public schools, UW, roads, healthcare,” Roys wrote. “We need a budget by June 30 or all of it is at serious risk.” 

Bills passed that will rely on funding in budget

The state budget overshadowed debate about several other bills Tuesday as Democrats complained about the lack of funding included in the bills and the lack of trust they have that Republicans will release the funding. 

Republicans, however, said the funding would come later in the budget. A similar argument took place in the state Senate last week. 

Republicans are splitting the bills from the funding as a way of working around Evers’ veto power. Evers has objected to this. Evers’ legislative affairs director sent letters to Republican lawmakers telling them that if they want their bills to become law, the policy needs to be included in the budget, the funding needs to be attached to the bill or the bill needs to include language that states the policy only goes into effect if there is funding. 

Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer (D-Racine) said at the start of session Tuesday that lawmakers have yet to take meaningful action on the budget and that is unacceptable.

“I want to be very clear about what happens in Wisconsin, if we fail to pass a budget before July 1. There will be no new special education, mental health, or nutrition spending for our schools. Project positions will end overnight. There will be cuts to programs like county conservation and tourism, and much more,” Neubauer said. “There are real consequences to not passing a budget on time. It will hurt Wisconsinites, and it really is unacceptable. It does not need to be this way.”

Neubauer said that Republicans are allowing the “extremists” in their party to hold up the budget process when lawmakers should be listening to their constituents. She said the floor session is an example of Republicans ineffectiveness.

“Even as the budget process is in complete chaos, the majority is writing a series of unfunded bills to the floor that they allege would receive funding in the budget,” Neubauer said. “My biggest question right now is, what budget? Republicans do not have a plan to fund these bills. They do not have a plan for our state budget, and they don’t have a plan to move our state forward. Wisconsin deserves better.”

Unfunded bills create ‘bizarre budget’ process

One bill — AB 279 — would instruct the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation (WEDC) to create a talent recruitment grant program meant to lure out-of-state families to relocate to Wisconsin. It passed by voice vote.

Rep. Alex Joers (D-Middleton) said he supports the idea but is concerned about the lack of funding.

“It creates a grant program and there’s no grants, there’s no funding in this bill,” Joers said. “You all need to fund your bills.” 

Bill author Rep. David Armstrong (R-Rice Lake) said his bill would help communities market themselves to people looking to relocate. He said he delivered five motions to the committee, but none were included. The committee took action on the WEDC budget earlier this month. 

“They told me to get these passed through the House and through the Senate and they’ll come back and find the funding,” Armstrong said, adding that he agrees the program shouldn’t be mandated without the money.

SB 106, which the Assembly concurred in, would provide the framework for the Department of Health Services to certify psychiatric residential treatment facilities. The facilities would provide in-patient care for people under 21 and are aimed at helping keep young people in crisis stay in-state for care.

Rep. Robyn Vining (D-Wauwatosa) said it is “outrageous” that the bill doesn’t include funding. 

“It’s not a workable bill if it’s not funded,” Vining said. “This is irresponsible governing. It is fiscally irresponsible. You guys have got to stop playing games.” 

Rep. Patrick Snyder (R-Weston) said the bill is critical so that young people in crisis have support from the state and their families. When it comes to funding, he said that would come later.

“It will be coming up in separate legislation as we negotiate, as this budget moves forward. We are not going to put a bill out without funding, and I don’t appreciate scare tactics like that because this won’t happen, I have a lot of budget motions, and I am working with JFC to get that accomplished,” Snyder said. “Let’s work on getting the foundation built and then finding out the cost and fund it.” 

SB 108 would require DHS to develop a portal to facilitate sharing of safety plans for a minor in crisis with specific people. It passed in a voice vote.

SB 283 requires the Department of Transportation to create a public protective services hearing protection program to provide specialized hearing protection devices to law enforcement and fire departments. 

Rep. Jodi Emerson (D-Eau Claire) said the bill is really good, but won’t work without funding.

“We’ve heard that Joint Finance is going to fund something, and it doesn’t happen,” Emerson said. “$15 million for hospitals in the Chippewa Valley still sitting in Joint Finance. Money for the reading program, still sitting in Joint Finance. Money for PFAS, still sitting in Joint Finance. There’s a lot of broken trust between the people of Wisconsin and that committee, so we need to see that the funding is here. We need to see it right now. Otherwise, I don’t see how we can get a bill like this passed.”

Rep. Tip McGuire (D-Kenosha), who is a member of the Joint Finance Committee, said during debate that Republicans have “set the stage for a bizarre budget” by approaching new policy in this way. He said Republicans have previously asked Democrats to trust funding will be released as they’ve allocated funding in a roundabout way, noting that in previous budget cycles lawmakers put money in supplemental funds as a way of requiring additional approval from the budget committee before the money was released.

“I voted for a literacy bill last year — $50 million to help kids read — and that money is still sitting there… We have the ability to appropriate funds, so we could have added funding to all these bills today,” McGuire said. 

McGuire said Republicans could be aiming to effectively reduce agencies’ budgets by mandating new projects without including the funding. 

“There’s the possibility that this is just a secret way of cutting agencies and of robbing every other program that those agencies administer because that’s what happens if we don’t administer the funds,” McGuire said. “Those agencies have to make the choice between the program that we require them to allocate funds for and other programs… and it makes it harder for people to receive services that they already need.” 

Nuclear power bills

The Assembly approved a pair of bills meant to move progress on nuclear energy in Wisconsin, which will now head to Evers’ desk for consideration.

One bill — SB 125 — would require the Public Service Commission to conduct a study to determine potential sites for a nuclear power plant. 

The other — SB 124 — would create a Nuclear Power Summit Board in Wisconsin meant to host a summit in Madison to advance nuclear power and fusion energy technology and development and to showcase Wisconsin’s leadership and innovation in the nuclear industry. The summit would need to be held within the month after instruction starts at the new engineering building at UW-Madison, which is supposed to be finished in 2028. The funding for the building was approved by the Legislature and Evers in 2024. 

Rep. Supreme Moore Omokunde (D-Milwaukee) said he is concerned about Wisconsin’s energy, but the bills as they are are missing some steps.

“Where’s our integrated resource plan? Have we developed one? In other states, they have an integrated resource plan, which lets us know just how much carbon emitting fuel we need to be producing and let’s not produce any more than that,” Moore Omokunde said. “We need to be determining the speed of nuclear energy, the cost, the safety.” 

Moore Omokunde said the state should take an “all of the above” approach and consider different types of energy including nuclear, wind and solar to allow Wisconsin to better decide its “energy future.”.

Snyder said that with technological advances, including artificial intelligence, other types of energy such as windmills and solar won’t be able to provide enough energy. 

“This is something for the future. If you want the cleanest energy, you have to include nuclear,” Snyder said. “We can’t be living in the past of Chernobyl. Fear does not move us forward.” 

Sortwell compared technological advances in energy production to the difference between the Flintstones and the Jetsons. He said lawmakers worked with Evers’ office and the PSC and other stakeholders on the bill. Evers had proposed including $1 million in the state budget to support a nuclear power plant feasibility study.

“The nuclear renaissance is upon us here in Wisconsin and in the United States, and it’s time for everybody else to get on board,” Sortwell said. 

New and increased penalties

The Assembly also passed bills that increase — or create — criminal penalties. 

Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee) spoke in opposition to the slate of bills, saying they will contribute to mass incarceration in Wisconsin. 

“Locking people up does not need to be the solution to every single piece of legislation,” Clancy said. “Incarceration has become this Legislature’s default response to every single claim you think is wrong in this state. It’s incredibly harmful and it doesn’t work.”

AB 26 would make it a Class H felony to threaten or commit battery against a juror or a member of a juror’s family. 

While talking about this bill, Rep. Shae Sortwell (R-Two Rivers) said he was thankful Clancy was in the “minority of the minority of the minority” on the issue. He said it would help protect family members of jurors.

“While you may as an individual juror not feel particularly at risk yourself, maybe you’re concerned about your family being threatened, and so this is making sure once again that we have a justice system that is deciding on the merits of the case,” Sortwell said.

AB 35 would change current law that says candidates can’t remove their names from ballots unless they are dead. The bill comes in reaction to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. trying unsuccessfully to remove himself from the Wisconsin presidential ballot in 2024 after he dropped out and endorsed President Donald Trump.

Under the bill, candidates withdrawing from national or statewide races would have to pay the Wisconsin Elections Commission a $1,000 fee — or $250 for a non-statewide office. 

The bill would also make it a Class G felony with a maximum penalty of up to $25,000 and imprisonment for up to 10 years if someone intentionally makes or files a false statement withdrawing a person’s candidacy.

AB 53 would also make it a Class H felony to cause or threaten to cause bodily harm to a community service officer in response to an action the CSO took in an official capacity. It is currently a class A misdemeanor to cause bodily harm to another person.

AB 65 would make it a Class F felony with a maximum penalty of $25,000 and 12 years and 6 months in prison if someone intentionally enters another person’s home without consent with intent to commit battery.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Why has the Wisconsin State Bar take a pass on condemning unconstitutional intimidation of lawyers? And why can't anyone find out the details of how that decision was made? |Getty Images Creative

The State Bar of Wisconsin was created by the Wisconsin Supreme Court as the trade association that all Wisconsin lawyers must join to obtain their law licenses. Its vision statement declares its cardinal purpose: “Our members are the respected guardians of the dignity and integrity of the rule of law within a fair and accessible justice system.” 

Yet recently, State Bar leaders deliberately violated their own vision statement by refusing in any way to push back against President Donald Trump’s blatantly illegal executive orders attacking lawyers, without whom the rule of law cannot exist “within a fair and accessible justice system.” Why they shirked their express mission remains a mystery because State Bar leaders voted in secrecy on the issue and refused to explain themselves to the 25,000 State Bar members they purportedly serve. Instead, they have stonewalled membership with a bogus cone of silence over their deliberations.

Here is the context:

Earlier this Spring, President Donald Trump issued punitive executive orders targeting 14 prominent law firms because he didn’t like their lawyers, clients, cases, or speech. He acted to cripple their ability to provide legal services to their clients. Trump then offered these firms an extortionate “deal” he thought they couldn’t refuse: agree to provide millions of dollars in pro bono legal work to further Trump’s political agenda, such as free work for the coal industry, or else lose security clearances, access to federal buildings and even government contracts held by their clients.  

Several of the firms capitulated, offering roughly $1 billion in legal services to Trump that otherwise would have funded true “pro bono” work for the underserved. Several others, including Perkins Coie, a distinguished national firm with Wisconsin members, refused. They fought back in court, and won.

Their wins are unsurprising. The U.S. Constitution undeniably bars our government from wielding its power to target lawyers based on their representation of clients, their employment decisions, or their advocating positions the administration doesn’t like.

Federal courts have been unanimous and unsparing in condemning Trump’s orders. One judge characterized such an order as a “personal vendetta” by Trump  that “the framers of our Constitution would see…as a shocking abuse of power.”

Retired conservative federal judge J. Michael Luttig commented that executive orders targeting law firms are “the most sinister and corrupt” of the “ocean of unconstitutional orders” coming out of the White House. He correctly emphasized that the legality of the executive orders is beside the point for Trump, who knows that no court will uphold them. The purpose, rather, is to intimidate lawyers.

Wisconsin lawyers are officers of the court, sworn to support the Constitution of the United States. We are thus duty-bound to guard the Constitution against existential hazards like Trump’s illegitimate orders. The rule of law requires no less.

Because the State Bar, through its governing board, is uniquely positioned to speak on issues of universal concern to all lawyers, we and others have repeatedly urged the Bar to honor its vision statement and publicly condemn Trump’s orders. Various versions of a statement supporting the rule of law have been offered for the board of governors’ consideration and adoption, statements that no reasonable lawyer could find objectionable while remaining true to the lawyer’s oath. 

We are not asking a lot. Already the State Bar—once a national leader in advancing the rule of law—is woefully behind many other respected lawyer organizations. On March 26, 2025, for example, the American Bar Association was joined by more than a hundred other lawyer organizations in a public statement specifically rejecting “the notion that the U.S. government can punish lawyers and law firms who represent certain clients…”

The ABA statement continued: “There are clear choices facing our profession. We can choose to remain silent and allow these acts to continue or we can stand for the rule of law and the values we hold dear. We call upon the entire profession… to speak out against intimidation.”

On May 22, we were informed by a single member of the Wisconsin State Bar board of governors that the board met in closed session May 14, and “following extensive discussion protected by the attorney-client privilege, the Board voted to make no statement concerning recent actions taken by the Executive Branch of the federal government.”

That’s all we know because board members also voted to remain silent on what occurred during the closed meeting, for reasons they will also not disclose. Newly-elected members of the board of governors taking office July 1 will be barred from learning more about the May 14 closed meeting until they first take a vow of silence on what they may learn even though they are instructed by their position description to “[c]ommunicate regularly with constituents,” and to “[b]e well versed in the State Bar’s public policy positions and be prepared to explain them to…members of the bar.”

We have since asked 12 representatives on the board several questions about what happened in secret and why. Only three replied, but they provided little information. We still don’t know: (1) why the question was taken up in closed session, (2) why State Bar leaders needed legal counsel to advise whether the Bar should issue a statement supporting the rule of law, (3) what was discussed, (4) why no statement was issued, and (5) what was the final vote. 

We asked State Bar leadership and staff to forward our questions to all 52 members of the board but, despite an agreement to do so, the questions were not sent. We still have no answers.

More than 400 years ago Shakespeare highlighted the tyrant’s tactic for thwarting the rule of law: “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” Federal District Judge Beryl Howell invoked Shakespeare’s warning in her scathing takedown of the executive order targeting Perkins Coie, further observing that when American history is written, “those who stood up in court to vindicate constitutional rights and, by so doing, served to promote the rule of law, will be the models lauded.” 

The success of Trump’s intimidation campaign depends largely on whether lawyers forcefully resist his illegal bullying at every opportunity. Thus, the State Bar’s cowering non-response bodes ill for the rule of law in Wisconsin. As the American Bar Association stated: “If the lawyers do not speak…who will protect the bedrock of justice?”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The growth of electricity is closely linked to the growth of productivity and has been essential for the industrialization of Western nations. As...

The post Big Is Not Always Beautiful: Why TSOs Should Embrace Distributed Assets appeared first on Cleantech Group.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., right, meets with Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland resident who was erroneously deported to El Salvador by the U.S. government. (Photo courtesy Van Hollen's office)

WASHINGTON — Attorneys for Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the wrongly deported Maryland man who has now been returned to the United States, are pushing to keep his civil case open in pursuit of sanctions against the Trump administration for refusing to comply with a U.S. Supreme Court order to facilitate his return.

“Until the Government is held accountable for its blatant, willful, and persistent violations of court orders at excruciating cost to Abrego Garcia and his family, this case is not over,” according to the brief by Abrego Garcia’s attorneys filed Sunday.

“The executive branch’s wanton disregard for the judicial branch has left a stain on the Constitution,” they wrote. “If there is to be any hope of removing that stain, it must start by shining a light on the improper actions of the Government in this tragic affair and imposing meaningful remedies.”

The Trump administration on Friday moved to dismiss the civil suit filed in federal district court in Maryland, arguing it is moot after Abrego Garica landed in the U.S. to face criminal charges for “alien smuggling.”

A May 21 two-count Tennessee grand jury indictment, unsealed Friday, accused Abrego Garcia of conspiracy to unlawfully transport undocumented people for profit and the unlawful transportation of undocumented people between 2016 and 2025. The indictment also accused him of being a member of the MS-13 gang.

His attorneys have disputed those charges.

Department of Justice lawyers also moved to deny Abrego Garcia bond, on the grounds that he is a flight risk and poses a danger to the community.

If convicted, Abrego Garcia could face up to 10 years in prison for each undocumented person transported.

“Accordingly, the sentencing exposure for the defendant – given the number of undocumented aliens involved – goes well beyond the remainder of the defendant’s life,” Robert E. McGuire, acting U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee, wrote.

Deported to CECOT

The civil suit was brought by Abrego Garcia’s family after he was arrested by immigration officials in March and swiftly put on a deportation plane to a notorious mega-prison in El Salvador, despite having protections against removal to his home country since 2019.

Abrego Garcia’s arrest in March was not due to any criminal charges, but he was informed his immigration status had changed. The Trump administration has admitted his initial deportation to the brutal CECOT prison was an “administrative error,” but has maintained Abrego Garcia was in the custody of El Salvador and could not be brought back.

Trump officials, including President Donald Trump, repeatedly said that Abrego Garica would not return to the U.S. and the president seemed upset with the news of his return on Friday.

“He should have never had to be returned,” Trump said in a gaggle with reporters on Air Force One Friday night. “It’s a disaster.”

On Friday, Attorney General Pam Bondi thanked El Salvador President Nayib Bukele after the Trump administration presented an arrest warrant for Abrego Garcia.

‘Determined stalling campaign’

The Trump administration argued that because Abrego Garcia was brought back to the U.S. on Friday, the civil case is moot.

But his attorneys argue that Abrego Garcia was not brought back to Maryland due to court orders – even as high as the Supreme Court – but “rather to Tennessee so that he could be charged with a crime in a case that the Government only developed while it was under threat of sanctions.”

“Two things are now crystal clear. First, the Government has always had the ability to return Abrego Garcia, but it has simply refused to do so,” according to the brief. “Second, the Government has conducted a determined stalling campaign to stave off contempt sanctions long enough to concoct a politically face-saving exit from its own predicament.”

Maryland District Court Judge Paula Xinis, who has handled the high-profile case since March, has granted Abrego Garcia’s attorneys until Wednesday to file their request for sanctions against the Trump administration.

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys said they want to push forward with discovery documents because they “are finally on the verge of securing answers from knowledgeable officials about what the Government actually did or did not do to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return.”

Abrego Garcia will be arraigned before a federal court in Nashville on Friday.

A solar power array. Advocates say projects that help speed the conversion to clean energy, such as solar power, could be stymied by a U.S. House proposal to repeal clean energy tax credits. (Photo by Evan Houk/Maine Morning Star)

The tax cut legislation that U.S. House of Representatives Republicans are putting together in Washington includes measures that will cost thousands of jobs in Wisconsin and undercut the state’s progress toward cleaner energy, according to environmental and labor advocates.

To help pay for the extension of tax cuts enacted in the first Trump administration, the GOP-led House Ways and Means Committee is proposing to repeal clean energy tax credits, Politico reported this week. The tax credits were among the measures enacted in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).

“These credits are not just numbers on a balance sheet out in Washington D.C,” said Emily Pritzkow, executive director of the Wisconsin Building Trades Council, in an online press conference Wednesday. “They are representing real jobs, real economic growth, and real progress towards Wisconsin’s sustainable energy infrastructure. Since the IRA was signed into law in 2022 we have seen an unprecedented boom in clean energy development in the trades.”

The press conference was hosted by Forward Together Wisconsin, a nonprofit established to inform people about the Biden administration’s infrastructure and climate investments and to defend them.

“We’ve been seeing this real opportunity to drive energy costs down, and I cannot for the life of me understand why people want to reverse that progress,” said former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes, president of Forward Together Wisconsin.

In addition to the tax credits that the U.S. House proposal would repeal, President Donald Trump in his second term has frozen federal clean energy grants that were part of the 2022 legislation. Those include grants to establish a network of electric vehicle charging stations — prompting a lawsuit by 15 states, including Wisconsin.

Solar energy investments that have boomed in the last three years are among those that are threatened by the House proposal, according to advocates.

“At a time when billions of dollars are being invested in states that overwhelmingly voted for President Trump, this proposed legislation will effectively dismantle the most successful industrial onshoring effort in U.S. history,” Abigail Ross Hopper, president and CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association, said in a statement this week.

Since passage of the IRA, Wisconsin has seen $933 million in clean energy and transportation private-sector investments, along with just over $2 billion from federal grants and loans, according to Innovation Policy & Technology, a San Francisco climate change policy think tank. The organization tallied 61 new clean energy and transportation projects that got underway in the state, with 45 manufacturing American-made products.

“Lower investment and higher energy bills due to repealing these federal programs and tax incentives will cost nearly 5,200 Wisconsin jobs in 2030 and more than 6,400 jobs in 2035, compared to current policies,” Innovation Policy & Technology reported.

The advocacy group Climate Power has calculated that without the federal support $5.4 billion for 15 planned Wisconsin clean energy projects could be in jeopardy.

Of those projects, 12 — 80% — are in five congressional districts represented by Republicans, according to Climate Power. Three representatives of those districts — Bryan Steil in the 1st CD, Scott Fitzgerald in the 5th CD and Glenn Grothman in the 6th CD — voted against the IRA in 2022. The other two, Derrick Van Orden in the 3rd CD and Tony Wied in the 8th CD, weren’t in office at the time but publicly opposed the legislation.

John Jacobs, business manager of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 494 in Southeast Wisconsin, said the clean energy tax credits and related policies have spurred investment and employment for the union’s members.

“I see first-hand how the clean energy tax credits have delivered on their promise, creating good family-sustaining union jobs across Wisconsin,” Jacobs said. “Repealing these tax credits could be devastating to many, but would put thousands of jobs at risk and hurt a growing industry.”

The tax credits were “an investment in America,” he added. The jobs lost if the credits are repealed “translate to economic instability for families across our state.”

The IRA also included a provision that extends the value of the tax credits to nonprofit organizations and government agencies.

Thanks to that benefit, called direct support payment, the Menasha Joint School District in the Fox Valley has qualified for a $4 million reimbursement from the federal government for installing rooftop solar energy and geothermal energy systems in a school currently under construction, said Brian Adesso, the school district’s business services director.

Once the school is complete the district expects to save $159,000 a year on its electric bill, “which is cost savings to local taxpayers and money that can be invested back into the students and staff,” Adesso said at the Forward Wisconsin press conference.

Adesso said the tax credits gave the district “certainty” it needed to be willing to undertake the clean energy additions to the project. Killing the credits would make that choice harder for school districts and impose higher costs on local property taxpayers, he added.

“The bill making its way through Congress takes a sledgehammer to the tax credits,” Addesso said — ending some credits early and attaching “bureaucratic restrictions that could make many of the credits unusable.”

Barnes said Forward Wisconsin Together is calling on Congress to protect the clean energy initiatives. “The people of Wisconsin deserve better,” he said. “The country deserves better. Clean energy as we know is the future, and we have to continue to invest in it.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Hundreds gather outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, May 15, 2025, to protest the Trump administration's effort to strip birthright citizenship from the Constitution. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Supreme Court justices appeared split Thursday hearing a major case in which the Trump administration defended not only the president’s order to end the constitutional right to birthright citizenship but also its efforts to limit nationwide injunctions.

Though the dispute before the justices relates to the executive order on birthright citizenship that President Donald Trump signed on his Inauguration Day, the Trump administration is asking the high court to focus on the issue of preliminary injunctions granted by lower courts, rather than the constitutionality of the order.

It means that the Supreme Court could potentially limit the power of federal judges in district courts who curtail the president’s authority.

The Trump administration argues that a federal judge granting a nationwide injunction that blocks the federal government from carrying out its policy anywhere in the country is unconstitutional.

The justices had before them three cases with injunctions levied by judges on Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship, from courts in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state. Under the 14th Amendment, all children born in the United States are considered citizens, regardless of their parents’ legal status.

Trump’s order, originally planned to go into effect Feb. 19, said that children born in the United States would not be automatically guaranteed citizenship if their parents were in the country without legal authorization or if they were on a temporary legal basis such as a work or student visa.

The justices questioned the practicality of a system in which judges can no longer issue nationwide injunctions and the logistics of instead having individuals file their own cases.

Liberal justice Elena Kagan said that would create a chaotic system, and conservative justice Neil Gorsuch said it would produce a “patchwork” of suits and noted how long it takes for a class — a group of affected people — to be put together for a court case.

Nationwide injunctions have stymied Trump’s agenda, but were also frequent during the Joe Biden administration. However, Trump has lashed out at judges who have blocked his actions, which in March prompted a rare response from conservative Chief Justice John Roberts on the importance of an independent judiciary.

‘Stateless’ children

If the Supreme Court, dominated 6-3 by conservatives, decides that nationwide injunctions are not allowed in the birthright citizenship cases, it would temporarily create a patchwork of citizenship rules varying from state to state while the cases are litigated. Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor said it would create a class of stateless people.

“Thousands of children who are going to be born without citizenship papers that could render them stateless in some places because some of their parents’ homes don’t recognize children of their nationals unless those children are born in their countries,” she said.

If birthright citizenship were to be eliminated, 255,000 children born each year would not be granted U.S. citizenship, according to a study by the think tank Migration Policy Institute.

40 injunctions since Jan. 20

Arguing on behalf of the Trump administration, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, in his opening remarks, noted that since Trump took office in January, there have been 40 nationwide injunctions.

“Universal injunctions exceed the judicial power granted in Article III, which exists only to address the injury to the complaining party,” he said, referring to the Constitution. “They transgress the traditional balance of equitable authority, and it creates a host of practical problems.”

Sauer touched on the merits of birthright citizenship, arguing that the 14th Amendment was only meant to grant citizenship to newly freed Black people, and not for immigrants in the country without legal authorization.

“The suggestion that our position on the merits is weak is profoundly mistaken,” Sauer said. “That kind of snap judgment on the merits that was presented in the lower courts is exactly the problem with the issue of racing to issue these nationwide injunctions.”

He said that the Trump administration would follow the high court’s ruling on birthright citizenship.

Sotomayor said that the Supreme Court has ruled four times to uphold birthright citizenship, starting in 1898, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, in which the court ruled children born in the U.S. are citizens.

The justice that seemed most inclined to agree with Sauer’s argument was conservative Clarence Thomas, who noted the use of nationwide injunctions began in the 1960s and the U.S. has survived without them.

However, conservative Justice Samuel Alito criticized that district court judges “are vulnerable to an occupational disease, which is the disease of thinking that ‘I am right and I can do whatever I want.’”

Citizenship ‘turned on and off’

New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum, who represented the states that sought an injunction against the birthright citizenship order, laid out how the patchwork of citizenship means that citizenship would be “turned on” and off depending on state lines.

“Since the 14th Amendment, our country has never allowed American citizenship to vary based on the state in which someone resides, because the post-Civil War nation wrote into our Constitution that citizens of the United States and of the states would be one and the same without variation across state lines,” he said.

Immigrant rights’ groups and several pregnant women in Maryland who are not U.S. citizens filed the case in Maryland; four states — Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon — filed the case in Washington state; and 18 Democratic state attorneys general filed the challenge in Massachusetts.

Those 18 states are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin. The District of Columbia and the county and city of San Francisco also joined.

Feigenbaum argued that the birthright citizenship case before the justices is the rare instance in which nationwide injunctions are needed because under a patchwork system, a burden would be created for states and local facilities such as hospitals where births occur.

“We genuinely don’t know how this could possibly work on the ground,” he said.

Kelsi Corkran, who argued on behalf of immigrant rights groups, said that the Trump order is “blatantly unlawful,” and that a nationwide injunction against the executive order was warranted.

“It is well settled that preliminary injunctions may benefit non-parties when necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs or when warranted by extraordinary circumstances, both of which are true here,” she said.

Corkran is the Supreme Court director at Georgetown’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection.

Lots of injunctions

The justices seemed frustrated with the frequent use of preliminary injunctions from the lower courts not only in the Trump administration, but others that occurred during the Biden administration.

Kagan noted that during the first Trump administration, suits were filed in the more liberal courts of California, and that during the Biden administration suits were filed in the more conservative courts in Texas.

“There is a big problem that is created by that mechanism,” Kagan said.

She added that it’s led to frequent emergency requests to the high court.

Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed, and called it a “bipartisan” issue that has occurred during Republican and Democratic presidencies.

While the justices seemed concerned about the frequent use of nationwide injunctions, they also seemed eager to address the merits of the constitutionality of the birthright citizenship executive order that could potentially impact newborns.

Kavanaugh returned to the question of the logistics of birthright citizenship and how it would even be enforced.    

He pressed Sauer on how hospitals and local governments would implement the policy and if they would be burdened.

“What would states do with a newborn?” Kavanaugh asked, adding that the executive order requires a quick implementation within 30 days.

Sauer said that hospitals wouldn’t have to do anything differently because the executive order directs the federal government to “not accept documents that have the wrong designation of citizenship from people who are subject to the (executive) order.”

Kavanaugh asked how the federal government would know who is subject to the order.

“The federal officials will have to figure that out,” Sauer said.

Any decision on the case will come before the Supreme Court’s July Fourth recess. 

The cleantech world is experiencing a quiet revolution. Artificial intelligence is no longer knocking at the door, it’s quietly remodeling the entire house....

The post The Ultimate Guide to AI in Cleantech appeared first on Cleantech Group.

SOUTH CHARLESTON, W.Va. – GreenPower Motor Company Inc. (NASDAQ: GP) (TSXV: GPV) (“GreenPower”), a leading manufacturer and distributor of purpose-built, all-electric, zero-emission medium and heavy-duty vehicles serving the cargo and delivery market, shuttle and transit space and school bus sector, today announced that three Type D all-electric, purpose-built, zero-emission BEAST school buses have been delivered to its West Virginia dealer for the Grant County School District under Round 2 funding of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean School Bus Program (CSBP).

“GreenPower continues to manufacture and deliver its all-electric, purpose-built school bus products to its dealer in West Virginia and dealers across the nation for school districts in a timely manner despite the current uncertainties of public policy, tariffs and funding,” said Brendan Riley, President of GreenPower. “This week’s delivery to our West Virginia dealer is for the second school district in West Virginia under the Clean School Bus Program since the contract with EPA was signed just four months ago and the federal funding became available in mid-March.”

Delivery of the West Virginia-manufactured school buses under the EPA grant was paused for a few weeks as part of the freeze on spending implemented by the Trump Administration as the new EPA team evaluated program spending. After the freeze was lifted, GreenPower’s first delivery to its dealer in West Virginia under the CSBP was for Kanawha County and today’s announcement represents the second set of buses under the award to Grant County. Calhoun County’s school buses funded under the CSBP will be the next delivery for GreenPower to its dealer.

To date, GreenPower has delivered 22 of its all-electric, purpose-built, zero-emission school buses in West Virginia for deployment in school districts across the Mountain State, including 16 BEASTS and six Nano BEASTs. The deployments represent approximately one-half of the orders placed for West Virginia school districts that have installed charging infrastructure and are prepared to accept the buses.

As the leading purpose-built American manufacturer of EV school buses, GreenPower is the only all-electric OEM that manufactures both a Class 4 Type A school bus and a Class 8 Type D school bus. The BEAST is a purpose-built 40-foot Type D all-electric, zero-emission school bus with seating for up to 90 students. Designed from the ground up as an EV, it is a fully integrated structure that features a strong and corrosion resistant aluminum body made from extruded aluminum, manufactured by Constellium, seamlessly mated to a high strength steel Truss (bus) chassis. The complete flat floor design allows for adjustable track seating with no wheel wells in the passenger compartment, and the high floor keeps students out of the impact zone. Combined port charging is standard with Level 2 rates up to 19.2 kW and DC Fast Charging rates up to 85 kW, allowing for full charging in less than three hours.

About GreenPower Motor Company, Inc.
GreenPower designs, builds and distributes a full suite of high-floor and low-floor all-electric medium and heavy-duty vehicles, including transit buses, school buses, shuttles, cargo vans and a cab and chassis. GreenPower employs a clean-sheet design to manufacture all-electric vehicles that are purpose-built to be battery powered with zero emissions while integrating global suppliers for key components. This OEM platform allows GreenPower to meet the specifications of various operators while providing standard parts for ease of maintenance and accessibility for warranty requirements. GreenPower was founded in Vancouver, Canada with primary operational facilities in southern California. Listed on the Toronto exchange since November 2015, GreenPower completed its U.S. IPO and NASDAQ listing in August 2020. For further information go to www.greenpowermotor.com.

The post GreenPower Announces Delivery of Three BEAST School Buses to Its Dealer for Grant County under EPA Clean School Bus Program appeared first on School Transportation News.

This quarter’s ‘Companies to Watch’ highlights companies that our guest investors from the region think our international audiences should know about. One company...

The post Cleantech Companies to Watch from the Asia-Pacific Region appeared first on Cleantech Group.

By harnessing the power of nature, engineers are looking to tap into vortex wind as a source of abundant energy When it comes to alternative energies, wind and solar power are currently attracting about 95% of all investments worldwide, according to a recent report from IRENA (International Renewable Energy Agency). Both are considered excellent alternative energy sources: …

The post Rethinking Wind Power: “Tornado in a Tower”  appeared first on Alternative Energy HQ.

IN JANUARY, SOLAR AND WIND WERE 98.4% OF NEW U.S. GENERATING CAPACITY STRONG GROWTH BY RENEWABLES STILL PROJECTED FOR NEXT THREE YEARS Washington DC – A review by the SUN DAY Campaign of data just released by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) reveals that the combination of solar and wind accounted for more than 98% of new …

The post Latest USA Solar and Wind Capacity appeared first on Alternative Energy HQ.

2024 was a standout year for fusion with multiple companies and technology types raising funds. As concerns around meeting the energy demands for...

The post Diversifying Approaches to Achieve Fusion: How Growing Demands for Energy Are Encouraging Investors to Back a Broad Variety of Fusion Systems appeared first on Cleantech Group.

Heavy lifting expertise shortens project schedule and provides contingency planning The N05-A platform is the first offshore gas platform in the Dutch North Sea to be powered entirely by wind power – harnessing electricity via cable from the nearby 113.4 MW Riffgat offshore wind farm. The platform is part of the GEMS (‘Gateway to the …

The post Efficient load-out of first wind-powered offshore gas platform in the Dutch North Sea  appeared first on Alternative Energy HQ.

Bergen, Norway February 17th, 2025 — Since going into service in 2015, the MF Ampere has now sailed an astonishing distance equivalent to 17 times around the equator on batteries alone, solidifying its place as a groundbreaking achievement in sustainable maritime transport. A decade on and the Ampere continues to showcase the transformative potential of electric …

The post World’s first fully electric ferry celebrates 10 years of success appeared first on Alternative Energy HQ.

U.S. Domestic Solar Production Reaches Historic Milestone Washington, D.C. – The United States has surpassed 50 GW in domestic solar energy manufacturing capacity for the first time in history, enough to power approximately 37.5 million homes. This milestone marks an impressive progress—bolstered by clean energy investments in the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law—by the renewable energy …

The post U.S. Domestic Solar Production Reaches Historic Milestone appeared first on Alternative Energy HQ.

Offshore wind supply chain faces systemic pressure as 2030 clean energy targets loom – Shoreline Wind report  Governments should provide clearer policies and integrate new tender criteria, while developers can empower smaller firms through standardized contracts, improved payment terms, and collaboration with specialist service providers    Smaller firms are particularly vulnerable, struggling to compete and …

The post Offshore wind supply chain appeared first on Alternative Energy HQ.