Dominance politics and elite gatekeeping by Josh Marshall/Talking Points Memo

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/dominance-politics-elite-gatekeeping-and-jon-ossoff/sharetoken/ba41bffa-12d3-4eab-91de-1819d8aa3242

Gaza - Is it a genocide? Christopher Armitage...The Existentialist Republic

 https://cmarmitage.substack.com/p/on-palestine-and-genocide?r=zv1g&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web 

The Existentialist Republic

By Christopher Armitage

In September 2026, four acts gave up their spots on Ed Sheeran’s stadium tour after Sheeran dropped Macklemore for saying two words from the stage: Free Palestine. Finneas, Aaron Rowe, the Irish band Beoga, and the Danish band Lukas Graham have all walked. Macklemore had introduced his song Hind’s Hall, named for Hind Rajab, a six-year-old killed in Gaza waiting for rescue in a car with her dead relatives. Robert Kraft, who owns Gillette Stadium, had barred him from performing there, and Macklemore says Sheeran told him Kraft rallied other stadium owners into an ultimatum: keep Macklemore and lose the venues.

Ed Sheeran apparently doesn’t want to take sides on the whole “is genocide bad” conversation.

It feels obvious to me that what’s happening to the people of Gaza is a genocide. There is more suffering in the world than any one person can take on, and the ways to actually reduce it are not all within reach. Some levers are easy to pull, some are almost impossible to move even when the choice in front of you is between people dying and someone’s profit, and no one can fix it all. What I try to do, as a person and as the founder of this publication, is find the ones I can actually reach that reduce the most suffering while being achievable, and put my attention there.

I’ve posted several pieces on divestment campaigns to move government and union funds away from the companies currently committing war crimes. I’ll make sure to cover that again soon and am working behind the scenes to create a legislative push in all 50 states and with every major union to have mass divestment and contract discontinuation from the companies attacking democracy and murdering innocents en masse.****

 

Supreme Court blocks Postal Service anti-mail voting rule

 https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/09/supreme-court-denies-trump-administrations-request-to-implement-parts-of-usps-rule-on-mail-in-vo/

By Amy Howe - Scotus Blog - Co-founder and reporter

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to allow the U.S. Postal Service to carry out parts of a new rule on mail-in voting. In a brief, unsigned order, the justices left in place a ruling by a federal judge in Boston that bars the USPS from implementing aspects of the rule.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh penned a one-paragraph concurrence in which he agreed with the decision to deny the government’s request. He suggested that, in his view, the Postal Service might have the power to issue the rule. But even if it does, he continued, election officials “do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before” the November elections.

Justice Samuel Alito dissented from the court’s ruling, in an opinion joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. He argued that some of the challengers in the dispute do not have a legal right to sue, known as standing, “while the remainder are pursuing a claim that this Court has recently called a ‘Hail Mary pass’ that ‘rarely succeeds.’”

The court’s order comes less than two months before the midterm elections in November. At least two states – North Carolina and Alabama – have already begun to send out ballots by mail.

Removal for Cause - Manners and Menand - Yale LJ 2026

 

The Power to Remove For Cause

136 Yale Law Journal __ (2026)

61 Pages Posted: 26 Feb 2026 Last revised: 26 Aug 2026

Jane Manners

Fordham University

Lev Menand

Columbia University - Law School

Date Written: February 25, 2026

Abstract

This Article reconstructs the American law of removal “for cause.” It shows that nineteenth century state legislators used this term to strike a balance—to protect officers from losing their jobs for political reasons, while enabling the discharge of officers unable to carry out their duties effectively. Although legislators employed “for cause” provisions to create some flexibility for removing authorities, in most cases they did not expect those authorities to have the final word on whether an officer’s conduct merited removal. Instead, legislators thought of a removal “for cause” as an adjudicatory act—requiring notice, an opportunity to be heard, and judicial review of the legal sufficiency of the asserted cause.

In the decades after the Civil War, removing authorities in many states argued that “for cause” language was merely admonitory, requiring no process or judicial review. Although most courts rejected these arguments, a striking divergence emerged: Where a removed officer served for a fixed term, almost all state courts adopted “the American Rule,” treating removal as adjudicatory. But where a statute included no fixed term, some state judges (likely wary of offices that could otherwise be held for life) embraced the admonitory position.

This history reveals the significance of two largely overlooked cases from the early 1900s: Reagan v. U.S. and Shurtleff v. U.S. In these decisions, the Supreme Court resolved the question of which way federal courts would go. It adopted the American Rule for federal offices, but it declined to enforce adjudicatory removal in cases without express language conferring office for a fixed term or for life. As Congress built out the administrative state, it did so against the backdrop of the substantial body of statutory common law underlying this doctrinal settlement. Drawing on these findings, this Article offers an historically-grounded framework for evaluating removal disputes between the President and federal administrators today, in line with the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. Cook. It also offers concrete legal bases that judges can use in future cases to define the outer limits of executive removal power. 

License Information

The copyright holder has granted SSRN a license. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.

Suggested Citation:

Manners, Jane and Menand, Lev, The Power to Remove For Cause (February 25, 2026). 136 Yale Law Journal __ (2026), Available at SSRN:

The US-Canada Trainwreck - Josh Marshall

 https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-us-canada-trainwreck-and-the-limits-of-american-power

OMG - I didn't realize it was this bad! Joe Quant

 https://joequant.substack.com/p/omg-i-didnt-realize-it-was-this-bad?r=zv1g&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web

The stuff coming out of the Council on Foreign Relations about China is just awful.  Let's face it...we are led by a guy who acts out of instinct and impulse, backed by a party of lame sycophants - today's GOP.

Mark Elias: the Democracy Docket Story

 or How I left big law and built a law firm dedicated to protecting the right to vote.

Mark Elias: Paul Weiss firm folds into Trump's lap

Mark Elias, leading Democrat election lawyer explains how the once prestigious New York firm Paul Weiss, Rifkind & Alexander folded. 

Today, the New York Times helped give important context to the frustration I have felt and the problem we face.

 

In a long exposé, authors Michael S. Schmidt and Jessica Silver-Greenberg detail how one firm — Paul Weiss — “went from standing up to Trump to bending the knee.”

 

It is a startling account of greed, immorality, and cynicism. But mostly, it is a story of cowardice. As the Times explained, “Paul Weiss was a progressive stalwart for decades and led the legal resistance against President Trump in his first term. Then surrendered without a fight.”

Armitage: Impeaching a judge for Federalist Society membership?

Impeaching a Judge for Federalist Society Membership

Unitary Executive Theory, the Good Behavior Standard and the Role of the Senate

 by Christopher Armitage

On June 29 the U.S. Supreme Court decided Trump v. Slaughter. Congress had built roughly two dozen regulatory bodies to operate outside presidential control, with fixed terms and removal only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. The Court held that design unconstitutional and overruled Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the 1935 precedent that had permitted it for ninety-one years. Every one of those officials now serves at the president’s pleasure. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “If anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it.”

The ruling completed a forty-year project that began in the Reagan administration. Unitary executive theory is one part of it, the claim that the president alone controls the entire executive branch. The rest is a body of rulings that place a president beyond prosecution, leave the disqualification clause unenforceable, remove the independence Congress built into the agencies, and apply constitutional principle selectively along partisan lines. Judges credentialed through a single organization delivered all of it, and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse documented on the Senate floor that 86 percent of the first Trump administration’s Supreme Court and appellate nominees were or had been members.

The remedy follows from that completion. In my view, membership in the Federalist Society, the network that supplied them, is sufficient cause to impeach and remove a federal judge.

The Federalist Society Built the Doctrine

Trump settles lawsuit against himself

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.706172/gov.uscourts.flsd.706172.106.0.pdf Donald Trump sued the Internal Revenue Service, which agreed to cough up in excess of $ 1 billion to compensate his supporters for injuries allegeledly sufffered at the hands of the Justice Department. This is like my face suing my fist for the black eye it gave me. Read the bizarre details.

Chellie Pingree, M.C. on ICE in Maine

 From: Congresswoman Pingree <ME01CPIMA@mail.house.gov>

Date: Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 4:13 PM
Subject: Message from Congresswoman Chellie Pingree
To: <marilyn.armbruster@gmail.com>

Dear Marilyn,  Thank you for contacting me about the immigration enforcement actions taken by the Trump Administration. Like you, I’m deeply concerned about how these policies are harming our friends and neighbors. Maine is home to over 50,000 immigrants —more than 8,000 of whom are seeking asylum and have likely already survived unimaginable hardship—who contribute actively to our communities and local economies. Asylum seekers are lawfully present while their cases move through U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services or the courts, and many other immigrants in Maine hold work permits, green cards, or are pursuing other lawful paths to permanent status in the U.S. All they want is a safe life and the means to provide for themselves and their families. This administration wants to make it impossible for them to build their lives here. Asylum seekers, lawful immigrants, and undocumented immigrants are distinct groups, even though this administration’s policies often blur those distinctions . Since taking office in 2025, President Trump has reinstated and expanded the dangerous and reckless immigration policies he enacted in his first term. In his first months in office, Trump launched a sweeping agenda of anti-immigrant policies—issuing Executive Orders to expand detention and deportation, impose travel bans, restrict refugee admissions, and make it harder for immigrants to access pathways to remain in the U.S. lawfully. In particular, he directed the Department of Homeland Security to expand detention infrastructure in the country and begin detaining anyone arrested by Homeland Security for deportation. This has led to arrests in schools, hospitals, courthouses, and workplaces, causing fear and confusion across the country. Here in Maine, we regularly see reports now of Homeland Security detaining someone in our community. The recent arrests of a work-authorized Old Orchard Beach Police Department reserve officer, a pastor from Westbrook, and an individual seeking medical attention after a car crash, not to mention the countless unreported stories of workplace and roadside arrests, are cause for alarm and expose a broader pattern: The immigration enforcement tactics used by this administration are more opaque, more punitive, wildly inconsistent, and are enabling unchecked authority and undermining trust in lawful pathways. Instead of going after the most dangerous people, these enforcement actions do not distinguish between individuals with pending asylum cases, those with valid work authorization, and those without lawful status—instilling fear among law-abiding residents who are simply trying to live, work, and care for their families.  My office has heard from several Maine employers that their work-authorized employees —including home health aides, food processors, construction workers, educators, and religious leaders—are being targeted for detention. Several of these employees passed background checks as a requirement of their employment. These are not failures of the individuals – many of whom are here lawfully, working with authorization, or actively pursuing legal pathways to permanent immigration status. They are failures of a system that makes it dangerously easy to jail people who are lawfully present and fully participating in and contributing to our community. This blurring of lines between lawfully present immigrants and those who are intentionally breaking the law undermines confidence in the system and penalizes those who are following the rules. As someone who has long worked in Congress to fix our broken immigration system and correct the cumbersome work permit authorization process, the reports of workplace sweeps and of people with valid work permits being detained are particularly disturbing. Employers across Maine take great pride in welcoming new Mainers to help fill their workforce needs. To target people who are not only contributing to our economy but enriching our communities is nonsensical and flat-out wrong. My staff also hear almost every day from people whose loved ones have been detained. In many cases, these arrests involve lawfully present individuals with pending asylum claims or valid work permits, yet families are left without clear information. Families contact my office because they do not know why their family member has been arrested, if they are in Customs and Border Patrol custody, or ICE custody or where they have been sent--a local county jail or a detention facility in another, often rural part of the country. While my team can help find these family members by reaching out to Customs and Border Parol and ICE directly or, using the ICE online detainee locator, because of the separation of powers between Congress and the judicial branch, there is unfortunately only so much my office is able to do. Let me be clear. Homeland Security has always been able to move detainees between jails and states, particularly in New England, where several states share a field office and immigration court in Massachusetts. But now we are seeing a dramatic shift from what used to happen. In the past, ICE transfers were less frequent and usually involved individuals with final removal orders. Now, asylum seekers, children with Special Immigrant Juvenile Status, and others still awaiting hearings are being swept into detention and transferred far from their families and, importantly, legal representation.   My office has received reports of random traffic stops targeting people following a lawful immigration process and with no criminal background, resulting in a transfer to a rural Texas detention facility. We have heard from people arriving home after an overnight shift caring for people with disabilities to learn that Homeland Security has been to their house and is now looking for them. This is not normal. By targeting people who are following lawful processes alongside those who are not, the Administration has eroded trust in immigration enforcement Members of Congress have the constitutional and legal authority to oversee any federal agency, program, or infrastructure in their district. That includes ICE detention centers. It is deeply alarming that several Members have been denied entry to these facilities and only reinforces the idea that the Trump Administration is above the law and unconstrained by our Constitution. For months, we have heard about the deplorable conditions in many of these detention centers. Some of the accounts are truly horrific. The Administration’s efforts to undermine congressional oversight represents a brazen assault on the separation powers and our system of checks and balances. The Trump Administration has made it abundantly clear that it will stop at nothing to meet its deportation goals— even if it means sweeping up immigrants who have taken every step required to lawfully live and work here. This isn’t just morally and legally indefensible; it’s disastrous for our democracy—eroding trust in government, jeopardizing public safety, and undermining the very values this country holds dear. I strongly believe that we should focus on enforcing immigration laws that are already in place, and addressing our nation’s workforce needs while protecting the rights of American workers, preserving families, defending our national security, defending the rights of migrants to seek asylum at our borders, as guaranteed under U.S. and International law, and expanding alternative pathways for lawful migration. I also believe it is critical that we ensure access to legal representation for those who have been detained, a right to which is being made even more challenging due to the remote locations of the facilities and the obstacles created by this administration. I know these are frightening times for many. If you have chosen to make Maine your home, I promise to do everything in my power to ensure that you and your community are given the rights, protections, and opportunities you deserve. I am grateful that you chose Maine, and that you continue to choose to contribute to our culture, our state, and our nation by being here. No matter what, I will keep fighting for a stronger, fairer, compassionate, and economically sound immigration system that provides a pathway to citizenship allowing full and fair consideration as Americans, and all of the same rights and responsibilities that come with it. Sincerely, Chellie Pingree Member of Congress Please do not reply to this message, as this inbox is unattended. To contact me, please visit my website at http://pingree.house.gov. If you need immediate help with a federal agency, please call my Portland Office at 207-774-5019 or toll free at 888-862-6500.

A king, not a chief executive

Trump v. Slaughter, June 29, 2026 Supreme Court of the United States

Roberts, C.J. :

 'The Constitution vests “[t]he executive Power” in a “President of the United States of America” and instructs that he “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Art. II, §§1, 3. To vest the executive power in one person was to establish a hierarchy—a “Chief Magistrate” with whom the buck stops, and below him various “assistants or deputies” who “derive their offices from his appointment” and remain “subject to his superintendence.” The Federalist No. 72, p. 436 (A. Hamilton). To remain accountable to the President, those officers must be removable by the President.

***What text, history, and structure settle, the Court’s precedent confirms—the President may remove his subordinates at will. Pp. 13– 25. (1) As early as 1839, the Court reaffirmed what the First Congress had held. It was “very early adopted, as the practical construction of the Constitution,” the Court noted, that the power “to remove, where the tenure of the office was not fixed by the Constitution,” was “vested in the President alone.” Ex parte Hennen, 13 Pet. 230, 259. See also Parsons v. United States, 167 U. S. 324, 330 (“[T]he decision of Congress in 1789, and the universal practice of the Government under it, ha[s] settled the question beyond any power of alteration”). The Court's landmark decision in Myers v. United States, 272 U. S. 52, confirmed the President’s power to fire his subordinates at will.

Mayor Mamdani July 4, 2026 Speech

America should offer asylum for the persecuted—not persecute those seeking asylum.

 Mayor Mamdani July 4, 2026 Speech

<iframe width="743" height="269" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XcxRUkGAM-w" title="Mayor Mamdani Delivers Address Marking America’s 250th Birthday" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Scotus poised to further undermine voting rights - Marc Elias

This year June is likely to be the cruelest month...particularly for voting rights.  - GWC

In Louisiana v. Callais, the Court made vote dilution nearly impossible to prove. It ignored Congress’ alterations to the Voting Rights Act and turned it back into an intents test, where the plaintiffs had to make the extremely difficult showing that the legislators intended to discriminate based on race. And yet, in the Alabama case, the plaintiffs managed to do that.

Democracy Docket - Marc Elias

In "The Waste Land," T.S. Eliot describes April as "the cruelest month." With all due respect, the renowned poet was clearly not a lawyer awaiting Supreme Court decisions that may define democracy for a generation.

 

For while April might contain a disquieting blend of death and renewal — "breeding lilacs out of the dead land, mixing memory and desire, stirring dull roots with spring rain" — in recent years, June has been the time when the high court delivers its most devastating blows against individual rights and the rule of law.

 

While November may hold elections, it has been June that is the cruelest month for our democracy.

 

As we enter June this year, the Court has yet to issue opinions in 26 cases. Among them are two that I was personally involved in litigating: National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC and Watson v. Republican National Committee.

 

Arguing before the Supreme Court is a highlight of any attorney's career. I have had that honor five times. The first four cases I argued all involved voting rights and redistricting. I won each one of them.

 

I argued the fifth — NRSC v. FEC — in December. It was different in every way.KEEP READING

TPM: Scotus cobbles together a way to deny vote to African Americans

 https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/supreme-court-alabama-midterms-black-voters

By Kate Riga - Talking Points Memo

The Supreme Court showed beyond a doubt Tuesday that it will never again put a stop to Republican states snuffing out the Black vote. 

The six right-wing justices granted Alabama’s request for a stay, which clears the way for the state to hold its 2026 elections under a 2023 map crafted to deliver Republicans six congressional seats and Democrats only one. It does so by making Black Alabamians’ votes count for less than white ones’. 

In Louisiana v. Callais, the Court made vote dilution nearly impossible to prove. It ignored Congress’ alterations to the Voting Rights Act and turned it back into an intents test, where the plaintiffs had to make the extremely difficult showing that the legislators intended to discriminate based on race. And yet, in the Alabama case, the plaintiffs managed to do that. The district court found plentiful evidence that the state intentionally discriminated after the court had previously ordered it to produce a map with two districts composed of a Black majority or near-majority, and Alabama flatly ignored it. The state instead produced another map with only one Black-majority district.

KEEP READING - link above

People died for the right to vote! but Justice Alito, et al...

 https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/their-loved-ones-died-for-the-voting-rights-act-the-supreme-courts-ruling-is-a-new-injustice

Trump v. Internal Revenue Service

Trump v. Internal Revenue Service

(1:26-cv-20609)

District Court, S.D. Florida

Judge  Kathleen Mary Williams

PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte. On February 18, 2026, the Court entered a paperless order (DE 27) that instructed Plaintiffs to file any memorandum in opposition to the motions for leave to file briefs as amici curiae (DE 7 ; DE 15 ) on or before February 25, 2026. Plaintiffs did not file any memorandum in opposition. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the motions for leave to file briefs as amici curiae (DE 7 ; DE 15 ) are GRANTED. Signed by Judge Kathleen M. Williams on 2/27/2026. (ymd) (Entered: 02/27/2026)