Administrative State
Source Link
Excerpt:
On Wednesday, the Trump administration announced it was processing the family of Mohamed Soliman — the radical Islamist who allegedly set Jewish demonstrators ablaze in Boulder on Sunday — for removal from the country. Then came the order from a rogue judge blocking the administration.
Judge Gordon Gallagher’s two-page order halting the removal of Soliman’s wife and five children — all illegal aliens, according to Stephen Miller — isn’t merely a misapplication of justice. It is a direct assault on the executive branch’s constitutional authority. And if President Donald Trump continues to treat these rogue judicial decrees as legitimate, he not only cedes national security to ideological partisans in black robes — he permits a full-blown constitutional crisis to fester unchecked.
On Wednesday, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced that DHS and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) “have taken the family of suspected Boulder, Colorado terrorist, and illegal alien, Mohamed Soliman, into ICE custody.”
But within hours, Gallagher issued an order stating the Trump administration “SHALL NOT REMOVE Hayem El Gamal and her five children from the District of Colorado or the United States unless or until this Court or the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit vacates this Order.”
Source Link
Excerpt:
A federal judge on Thursday blocked the Trump administration from deporting the family of Mohamad Soliman, the individual suspected of firebombing a gathering of Israel supporters in Boulder, Colorado, on Sunday.
Judge Gordon P. Gallagher’s ruling stated that the administration cannot remove Soliman’s wife and five children from the District of Colorado or the United States pending a ruling from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. “[T]he Court finds that deportation without process could work irreparable harm and an order must issue without notice due to the urgency this situation presents,” the judge wrote.
BREAKING: Colorado federal judge Gordon Gallagher, a Biden appointee, has issued an order blocking the Trump administration from deporting the wife and five children of Boulder terror suspect Mohamed Soliman. pic.twitter.com/Lo8R1Yp19E
— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) June 4, 2025
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested the family earlier this week and was preparing to deport them before the judge’s ruling, The Hill reported.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is preparing to deport the family of Boulder, Colo., attacker Mohamed Soliman’s wife and five children.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem said Tuesday that the family had been detained in connection with the investigation, saying they would face questioning over whether they had any knowledge of the attack.
But according to a DHS statement Wednesday, ICE was said to be “processing them for removal.”
The statement sheds new light on a White House social media post Tuesday that said the family “could be deported by tonight.”
“Six One-Way Tickets for Mohamed’s Wife and Five Kids. Final Boarding Call Coming Soon,” the White House’s post said, along with an emoji of an airplane.
Source Link
Excerpt:
A federal judge on Wednesday blocked President Trump from deporting the family of the Egyptian terrorist who firebombed Jews in Boulder, Colorado.
US District Judge, Gordon Gallagher, a Biden appointee temporarily blocked the deportation of Mohamed Sabry Soliman’s wife and five children.
As reported by CNN:
A federal judge issued an order Wednesday to prevent the deportation of the wife and five children of an Egyptian man charged in the firebomb attack in Boulder, Colorado.
U.S. District Judge Gordon P. Gallagher granted a request from the family of Mohamed Sabry Soliman to halt deportation proceedings of his wife and five children who were taken into federal custody Tuesday by U.S. immigration officials.
On Sunday June 1, 2025, Mohamed Soliman, a 45-year-old Egyptian national, attacked a pro-Israel demonstration in Boulder, Colorado.
Source Link
Excerpt:
The Founding Fathers worried the judicial branch was “beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two.” Yet it seems that in these days of lawfare, the judiciary is quite capable of effectively attacking the other branches of government, particularly the branch headed by President Donald Trump.
A recent lawsuit, filed by the AFL-CIO against the Trump administration, offers the latest example of judicial interference with the executive branch. The lawsuit attacked several federal directives that attempted to reduce the federal workforce and reorganize many executive agencies.
These actions began with Executive Order 14210, issued on February 11, to effect “‘large-scale reductions in force’ (RIFs) and reorganizations.” Trump’s order is completely unsurprising and legitimate.
Republicans have been worried for decades about the size of the federal government. Couple that concern with President Trump’s awareness that partisan actors, working as federal employees, undermine his agenda, and it makes perfect sense that the president would take swift action to reorganize and reduce the size of the executive branch.
In response to President Trump’s order, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) sent memos to executive agencies, beginning a process of reorganizing and reducing the federal workforce. The memos called for changes to the agencies and the elimination of thousands of executive-branch jobs.
Source Link
Excerpt:The Supreme Court on Monday decided to hear an election case from Illinois, which promises to clarify the legal standards federal election candidates must meet to challenge state election laws in federal court, according to Judicial Watch.
The case is known as Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections, where Representative Mike Bost (R-IL) and two other Republican presidential elector nominees filed a lawsuit against the Illinois State Board of Elections. The suit challenged a state law authorizing the acceptance of mail-in ballots up to two weeks after election day. A district court dismissed the case due to a lack of standing, and the ruling was upheld by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Standing has been a contentious issue since 2020. The plaintiff must meet three requirements to have standing in a federal lawsuit as established by the Supreme Court case Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992). They must show a concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent injury, there has to be a causal connection between the injury and the issue brought before the court, and it must be likely that the court’s ruling will redress the injury. The lower courts argued that because Rep. Bost had won the election, he failed to show a personal injury caused by the state election law.
Source Link
Excerpt:
A US federal court has blocked President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs, in a major blow to a key component of his economic policies.
The Court of International Trade ruled that an emergency law invoked by the White House did not give the president unilateral authority to impose tariffs on nearly every country.
The Manhattan-based court said the US Constitution gave Congress exclusive powers to regulate commerce with other nations and this was not superseded by the president’s remit to safeguard the economy.
The Trump administration lodged an appeal within minutes of the ruling.
Source Link
Excerpt:
We here at the Louder with Crowder Dot Com website have been viewing the Jake Tapper media tour with a degree of amusement. He’s promoting his “now it can be told” book, which claims that everything we said about Joe Biden was true (with that other quiet guy who sits next to him looking weird). Now, Tapper is admitting how everything we said about Democrats and the media is true.
But this new clip of him, a CNN employee, blasting the media for letting Democrats get away with the lawfare they declared on Donald Trump… what do you even say to this?
To set the stage, since Tapper was a guest on Stephen A. Smith’s podcast, here is Stephen A. pointing out the true crime committed by the People Who Controlled Joe Biden Administration as exposed in the book: it makes Donald Trump look right about everything.
Well, if you were willing to do that, then doesn’t it strengthen his argument that lawfare is being used against him?
Source Link
Excerpt:
The court found the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which Trump has cited as his basis for ordering massive increases in import duties, does not authorize the use of tariffs.A three-judge panel ruled on several lawsuits arguing Trump exceeded his authority, casting doubt on trade policies that have jolted global financial markets, frustrated trade partners and raised uncertainty over the outlook for inflation and the global economy. The Trump administration filed an appeal, and it was unclear if the White House will respond to the ruling by pausing all of its emergency power tariffs in the interim.
Many of Trump’s double-digit tariff hikes are paused for up to 90 days to allow time for trade negotiations, but the uncertainty over their eventual outcome has stymied businesses and left consumers wary about what lies ahead.
“Just when traders thought they’d seen every twist in the tariff saga, the gavel dropped like a lightning bolt over the Pacific,” Stephen Innes of SPI Asset Management said in a commentary.
Source Link
Excerpt:
A federal judge has sided with the Trump administration, resolving a dispute with New York Attorney General Letitia James about the expansive scope of cost-cutters to examine U.S. Treasury payments that they claim are laden with wasteful spending.
James was among 18 Democratic attorneys general who filed suit to block an investigation by the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency into the Treasury payment system. The coterie was dealt a severe setback on Tuesday when U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas, for the Southern District of New York, lifted the last legal hurdle for the four DOGE employees tasked with carrying out the investigation.
An earlier order was also relaxed after the Trump administration showed evidence that it appropriately trained the four employees to safeguard sensitive taxpayer information during the probe. In April, Vargas granted access to one DOGE employee after they completed a similar training program.
Prior to those decisions, the judge, a Biden appointee, was mostly siding with the state prosecutors who argued that Treasury’s processes for granting access were poorly established, a likely violation of law.
Source Link
Excerpt:
The billionaires who control the left decided to make Elon Musk the boogeyman at the start of the Trump Administration. Anything that went wrong anywhere was the fault of Cousin Elon and DOGE. Low-information voters think Elon is stealing their health care, social security and personal information because that’s what Democrats lied about, knowing the media would swear by it. Nevertheless, he persisted because he felt the work DOGE was doing was important. His reward for taking on all the attacks and working twenty-hour days?
Republicans not doing anything to codify DOGE cuts into law, and then passing a big, beautiful bill that increased the deficit.
Welcome to the Tea Party circa 2010, Elon. We coined a phrase for this. “Failure Theater.”
I was, like, disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit, not just decreases it and undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing. I think a bill can be big or it can be beautiful, but I don’t know if it can be both. My personal opinion.
Source Link
Excerpt:
NPR filed a delusional lawsuit on Tuesday against the Trump administration, arguing that it has a constitutional right to your hard-earned money.
The suit, brought by NPR and three Colorado-based public radio stations, alleges that Trump’s executive order cutting federal funding to the left-wing NPR and PBS violates their right to free speech, as well as provisions of the Public Broadcasting Act.
“The [Executive] Order’s objectives could not be clearer: the Order aims to punish NPR for the content of news and other programming the President dislikes and chill the free exercise of First Amendment rights by NPR and individual public radios across the country,” the suit states.
But as Texas Rep. Brandon Gill countered in a post on X: “NPR has a right to free speech. It doesn’t have a right to our tax dollars.”
Source Link
Excerpt:
On Tuesday, CBS released a preview of an interview that will air on “Sunday Morning” in which Tesla CEO Elon Musk said he was disappointed in Republican’s so-called “big beautiful bill,” heralded by President Donald Trump.
Musk said, “So, you know, I was like, disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit, not decrease it and undermines the work the DOGE team is doing.”
Correspondent David Pogue said, “I actually thought that when this big beautiful bill came along, I mean, like, everything he’s done on DOGE gets wiped out in the first year.”
Musk said, “I think a bill can be big or it can be beautiful. But I don’t know if it can be both. My personal opinion.”
Source Link
Excerpt:
The White House plans to send a small package of spending cuts to Congress next week, senior GOP officials told several House Republicans Wednesday.
The planned transmission of the “rescissions” bill, confirmed by two Republicans granted anonymity to describe the plans, comes after a long internal battle over how to formalize the cuts that have been made by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency initiative.
The package set to land on Capitol Hill is expected to reflect only a fraction of the DOGE cuts, which have already fallen far short of Musk’s multi-trillion-dollar aspirations. The two Republicans said it will target NPR and PBS, as well as foreign aid agencies that have already been gutted by President Donald Trump’s administration.
Speaker Mike Johnson said on X Wednesday that the House “is eager and ready to act on DOGE’s findings so we can deliver even more cuts to big government that President Trump wants and the American people demand.” He said the House “will act quickly” on a package without saying when it might be submitted or what it might contain.
Source Link
Excerpt:
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on May 15 on what has become a debilitating, critical crisis: the issuance of nationwide injunctions en masse by federal district court judges.
Notably, the overwhelming majority of those judges are Democrat appointees who seek to prevent President Donald Trump from doing what he was elected to do: govern. According to a lawsuit tracker by the Associated Press, more than 200 lawsuits have been filed against Trump’s executive orders.
In three consolidated cases from Washington, Maryland, and Massachusetts, federal district court judges issued nationwide injunctions (sometimes called universal injunctions or, to quote Justice Neil Gorsuch, “cosmic injunctions”) against the implementation of a Trump executive order ending universal birthright citizenship. The plaintiffs in those cases claim the order violates the 14th Amendment.
Those injunctions reflect a broader pattern. In less than four months, roughly 40 nationwide injunctions have been entered against the Trump administration — almost double the number entered during all four years of the Biden administration. As Solicitor General John Sauer pointed out, 35 have come “from the same five judicial districts.”
Source Link
Excerpt:
Washington — NPR on Tuesday sued President Trump and administration officials over an executive order signed earlier this month that seeks to cut federal funding to the news organization and PBS.
Filed in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., the suit was brought by NPR and three Colorado-based public radio stations. It argues that Mr. Trump’s executive order violates the First Amendment and provisions of the Public Broadcasting Act, which was passed by Congress in 1967. The plaintiffs also assert that Mr. Trump did not have the authority to stop federal funding for NPR and PBS, and his order should be invalidated as unconstitutional.
The order, NPR and the three stations said in their complaint, is “textbook retaliation” and discriminates based on viewpoint, which is a violation of the First Amendment.