Jamelle Bouie: The Death of the 4th American Republic _ NY Tmes

The New Colossus - By Emma Lazarus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” 

Is Bouie's headline hyperbole? Chief Justice John Roberts has a reputation as a moderate.  It began with his testimony when nominated that his job was to call `balls and strikes'.  That attractive but specious metaphor is base on the notion that the difference between `strike and ball' is defined definitively and is objectively determinable.  But his history on voting rights - particularly2013's  Holder v. Shelby County demonstrates a hostility to steps necessary to make the Voting Rights Act (1965) and the  Fifteenth Amendment promise a reality. - GWC

By Jamelle Bouie

Last Friday, the Supreme Court all but announced how it would rule on the future of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The case in question, Louisiana v. Callais, which was heard for the first time in March, is a dispute over the drawing of the state’s six congressional districts. Nearly one-third of Louisianans are Black, but in 2022 state lawmakers drew just one district where those Black voters had a reasonable chance of electing a representative of their choice.

In Louisiana, as is true in much of the Deep South, voting is highly polarized by race. Black people tend to vote for Democrats, white people for Republicans. It’s in this environment that Black voters, a distinct and coherent minority, are shut out of political power unless they constitute a majority — or close to a majority — of a congressional district.

Several individuals as well as groups representing those voters sued under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act — which ensures fair representation — arguing that the law required the state to draw two congressional districts in which Black voters had the opportunity to elect their preferred candidate.

*** It’s this case that the Supreme Court has decided in essence to hear again, and it is for this case that the court wants the parties to address “whether the state’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the 14th or 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.”

Under the current Supreme Court’s vision of a rigidly colorblind Constitution — indifferent to either racial inequality or the mechanisms of color caste — the answer is very likely to be yes. There is also the matter of Chief Justice John Roberts, who has led the court’s effort to curb, limit and undermine the Voting Rights Act. 

KEEP READING

Dorf on Law; Skrimeti - transgender discrimination and 14th Amendment

https://www.dorfonlaw.org/2025/08/practicing-law-institute-scotus-roundup.html

Supreme Court roundup

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/06/opinion/supreme-court-voting-rights-act.html

Bouie: Death of the Republic

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/06/opinion/supreme-court-voting-rights-act.html

U.S. Extracts Change at Harvard with phony charges of anti-semitism

28 Law & Contemproary Problems 431 (1963)

 

There is a long tradition - known as academic freedom - which allows universities to be self-governing - within limits.  Those limits are posed most broadly by the federal civil rights laws such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, barring race or national origin discrimination, and Title IX of the 1972  Act barring discrimination based on gender.

The Civil Rights Act transformed American education, removing legal `de jure' race discrimination, and then barring gender discrimination.  Defenders of the status quo lamented Constitutionally mandated federal intervention.  But no one has ever seen intervention of the sort the U.S. Department of Education has attempted to take effective control of Harvard University.

Vermeule: Cardinal Newman - Doctor of Anti-liberalism

Adrian Vermeule, the Harvard law Prof, a conservative but with Cass Sunstein a celebrant of the administrative state is hostile to liberalism. Its individualism is seen as celebration of irresponsibility.  Here is his latest.  I wonder what he would say about RFK, Jr.?

https://open.substack.com/pub/thenewdigest/p/the-doctor-of-anti-liberalism?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=zv1g

Down goes Brown - Dorf on Law

We used to believe in academic freedom, deploring the Soviet's and the Chinese CP.

Goodbye to all that. Are Professors in MAGA hats next on campus?

https://www.dorfonlaw.org/2025/07/down-goes-brown.html

Vladeck- Bondi's ridiculous ethics complaint against Judge Boasberg

We await the decision of the Judicial Conference of the United States on whether to discipline Chief D.C. District Judge James Boasberg for his efforts to preserve the independence and integrity of judicial decison-making in courts of the United States.  The Attorney General has filed a disciplinary complaint.

Georgetown Law Professor Steve Vladeck dissects the charges HERE.

Senators cave, OK Bove for 3rd Circuit

We NJ lawyers are in the 3rd Circuit so we take a maga judge like Emil Bove personally.

As a member of the NJ Law Journal Editorial Board I joined colleagues trying to stop him. No luck.   Adam Schiff states the case.

https://www.law360.com/articles/2370513/attachments/0

Justice Department attack on Judge Boasberg

https://www.jackhopkinsnow.com/p/trumps-new-executive-order-is-a-blueprint?img=https://substack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/69cf5ef4-ed7f-499a-a5d5-e3a164612933_960x1301.heic&open=false&open=false

Lawrence Lessig: The Supreme Court - Eyes Wide Shut

Lawrence Lessig: The Supreme Court - Eyes Wide Shut

On April 8, 1952, President Harry S. Truman issued an executive order directing his secretary of commerce to take possession of most of the nation’s steel mills. The United States was at war. The United Steelworkers of America threatened a strike. Truman wanted to secure steel production to support the war. Fifty-five days later, in Youngstown Steel v. Sawyer, the Supreme Court declared the president’s order illegal and blocked the secretary from acting upon it. The power to seize property to stop a labor strike was Congress’ to give, not the president’s to take. “The Founders of this Nation,” as the court wrote, “entrusted the lawmaking power to the Congress alone.” The president is to execute Congress’ law, not craft his own law instead.

Fifty-five days. 

Most think that the hard question in constitutional law is to determine what the Constitution means. In fact, the hardest question is whether and when the courts must stand up to governmental actors who are resisting the Constitution. Judges have long understood that courts can’t right every wrong. The challenge is always to defend the Constitution while preserving the role of an independent court.

***

Trump Executive Order is Blueprint for Tyranny

https://www.jackhopkinsnow.com/p/trumps-new-executive-order-is-a-blueprint?img=https://substack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/69cf5ef4-ed7f-499a-a5d5-e3a164612933_960x1301.heic&open=false&open=false

Ideologues complaining about ideology : Steven Millies

https://open.substack.com/pub/millies/p/ideologues-complaining-about-ideology?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=zv1g

Gizmodo: CBS parent Paramount agrees to censor in antitrust clearance deal

 Welcome to the Cabaret!  - video  Joel Grey and Liza Minnelli

FCC to Appoint a Babysitter to Make Sure CBS Isn’t Anti-Trump

FCC commissioner Brendan Carr says CBS will have a "bias monitor."

By Matt Novak Published July 25, 2025 |  GIZMODO

  

The Federal Communications Commission finally approved an $8 billion merger between Paramount and Skydance on Thursday after several changes at CBS that were widely seen as efforts to placate President Donald Trump. Part of the deal will apparently require an ombudsman to check the media company’s supposed political biases. And FCC commissioner Brendan Carr has been doing the rounds to brag about how he’s getting people on TV to be nicer to the MAGA movement.

“They made commitments to address bias and restore fact-based reporting. I think that’s so important,” Carr told Newsmax’s Greg Kelly on his show Thursday night. “I mean, look, the American public simply do not trust these legacy media broadcasters. And so, if they stick with that commitment, you know, we’re sort of trust-but-verify mode, that’ll be a big win.”

Carr went on to explain that CBS had committed to “ending invidious forms of DEI,” a pretext Trump has used to purge the federal government of anyone who isn’t white and male in leadership positions. Kelly said that he had heard the media company was going to do something “different” with 60 Minutes, claiming that a shift to “fact-based” reporting would be a “cultural shock” to CBS.

“One of the things they’re going to have to do is put in an ombudsman in place for two years,” Carr said. “So basically a bias monitor that will report directly to the president. So that’s something that’s significant that we’re going to see happening as well.”

While Carr said “the president” rather than “the president of Paramount,” it’s not clear what he meant. Skydance wrote a letter to the FCC saying the ombudsman would answer to the president of Paramount, but it’s entirely possible that Carr understands their agreement differently. Gizmodo reached out to CBS and the FCC for comment but haven’t heard back.

Gazans are dying of starvation - NY Times

Gazans are dying of starvation - NY Times

 

 

Birthright citizenship under attack: Corey Bretschneider, John Fugelsang, and

 

<

i 

Judge J. Michael Luttig - America's Free Press

 J. Michael Luttig is a retired, Republican, judge of the United States Court of Appeals.

America's Free Press - by Judge J. Michael Luttig (Ret.)

July 22. 2025

Never before in the Nation’s almost 250 year history has America’s present and future depended more on the free press than it does today.

Thus is the Greek tragedy of our times that when the Nation needed the free press more than ever, so many among the free press have chosen to offer unto the President of the United States who has declared them “the enemy of the people” a sacrifice of their precious constitutional right to freedom of the press. A burnt offering to the very person for whom the free press was given its freedom by the Constitution of the United States.

With every offering of sacrifice to the President, these confirm in the minds of millions upon millions of Americans that the free press is indeed the enemy of the people, as the President has declared them to be.

The tragic irony is that these upon whom this precious right has been conferred have surrendered their right to the President in attempt to secure power from him that they know their submission will secure for them, when the only power they have and would ever have is secured to them not by the President, but by the Constitution of the United States.

Having surrendered themselves to the President to secure the power that comes from his blessing, they have now and forever forfeited the only actual power they possessed and would ever have possessed, which is secured to them by the Constitution of the United States. Hereafter, the only “power” they will possess is not power at all. It is subservient “power.” And that is as ephemeral as the morning dew.

These who have surrendered their right of the free press have proven their Allegiance to the President, but they have betrayed their allegiance to America.

531 Likes∙

144 Restacks

Cass Sunstein on ambition

https://x.com/seize_podcast/status/1947087741553918447?t=jksABHLodXL7cLmy_nyXyw&s=09

Ifill - Facing This Court Trump v. CASA - what next?

Facing this Court

A Sober Look at What to Expect in Trump v. Casa And What We Do About It

 By Sherrilyn Ifill

“None of this means that I am conceding defeat at this point. To the contrary. Even if, as I now believe, the conservative majority would be likely to rule in the President’s favor in Trump v. Casa if the merits were before them today, does not mean that the Court will in fact, ultimately rule in his favor. There’s still time. But it does mean that we must think now about how to create the conditions that can diminish the majority’s willingness to take such a dangerous step, and we must prepare the public for what it will mean if they do.”

I have spent a fair amount of time since last summer’s decision in Trump v. United States[i] trying o understand the contours of presidential power in the eyes of justices who constitute the conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Announcing that the President of the United States has immunity for any crimes committed in office so long as his actions could plausibly be described as “official acts,” was an astonishing and dangerous conferral of power on the president – especially on this president - who had shown himself in ways great and small, to be likely to use the cloak of immunity to commit acts even more lurid if he were returned to office than he had in his first term. Trump won the election, and his actions in Trump 2.0 reflect his full understanding of the gift of impunity provided by the Supreme Court.

KEEP READING

The Shadow Docket and how the Supreme Court Uses It

 

SCOTUS allows deportation to South Sudan

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which the United States ratified in 1992 *states in Article 13 (to which the United States has entered no reservations, understandings or declarations),

An Alien lawfully in the territory of a State Party to the present covenant may be expelled therefrom only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law and shall, except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, be allowed to submit the reasons against his expulsion and to have his case reviewed by, and be represented for the purpose before, the competent authority or a person or persons especially designated by the competent authority. [ICCPR, art. 13 (emphasis added)].

]

 In the ordinary course [under our laws regarding asylum and international convention) if an alien is deported they are returned to where they came - but not if they face oppression.  Not now, here detainees have been sent to South Sudan - a place where safety cannot be assured. Here the District Judge, sought to avoid a Supreme Court order.  Kagan concurred because the judge below breached the duty to obey.

Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissent.

- GWC

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATESNo. 24A1153DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL. v.D. V. D., ET AL.ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION[July 3, 2025] 

On April 18, 2025, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts preliminarily enjoined the Government from removing “any alien” to a “country not explicitly provided for on the alien’s order of removal” without following certain procedures designed to enable the alien to seek relief under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100−20, 1465 U. N. T. S. 113. No. 25−cv−10676, ECF Doc. 64, pp. 46−47. The District Court later found that the Government had violated that injunction by failing to provide six class members a “meaningful opportunity” to assert CAT claims before such removal. ECF Doc. 118, p. 1. On May 21, the District Court issued an “order on remedy,” directing the Government to follow specified procedures with respect to those individuals, tailored to the circumstances. ECF Doc. 119. The Government sought a stay of the April 18 injunction before our Court. On June 23, we stayed the April 18 preliminary injunction pending disposition of any appeal and petition for writ of certiorari. Later that day, however, the District Court issued a minute order stating that the May 21 remedial order “remain[ed] in full force and effect,” “notwithstanding” our stay of the preliminary injunction. ECF Doc. 176. The only authority it cited was the dissent from the stay order. 

*****

 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE JACKSON joins, dissenting. 

The United States may not deport noncitizens to a country where they are likely to be tortured or killed. International and domestic law guarantee that basic human right. In this case, the Government seeks to nullify it by deporting noncitizens to potentially dangerous countries without notice or the opportunity to assert a fear of torture. Because the Fifth Amendment, immigration law, federal regulations, and this Court’s precedent unambiguously prohibit such no-notice deportations, see DHS v. D. V. D., 606 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2025) (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 15–18), a Federal District Court issued a classwide preliminary injunction barring the Government from removing noncitizens without notice and adequate process. The Government appealed, and pending its appeal repeatedly violated the District Court’s order. See id., at ___– ___ (slip op., at 2–9). Meanwhile, the Government sought an emergency stay of the injunction from this Court. In its briefing, the Government took a kitchen-sink approach, arguing that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to grant classwide injunctive relief, that it also lacked jurisdiction over individual plaintiffs’ claims under the Due Process Clause, and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to notice or a hearing before their removal. Without citing any of these arguments, or indeed providing any legal justification this court granted the Government its requested stay.****

*⁹ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), adopted December 16, 1966, G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI), 21 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 52, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 999 U.N.T.S. 171, entered into force March 23, 1976, ratified by the United States on June 8, 1992, http://www.ohchr.org/english/countries/ratification/4.htm (accessed May 30, 2007)

Emil Bove and The Rule of Law in America by Judge J. Michael Luttig

Emil Bove and The Rule of Law in America by Judge J. Michael Luttig

I’m unaware of any other time when large numbers of judges (retired) publicly opposed a nominee for the federal bench. But this is what it is going to take. At this point, having demonstrated their utter contempt for the Constitution and Rule of Law time and again, the President and the Congress have abandoned all pretense of abiding by the same.

They have left the support and defense of the Constitution and Rule of Law in America entirely to the Judiciary, even as they deliberately erect every day as many obstacles to that support and defense by the Judiciary as they can possibly erect.

900!!! former DOJ lawyers have opposed the Bove nomination

As have more than 75 former judges.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#sent/QgrcJHrtrSkHwhJXkFpgrvDVhQfDlbnPPRl?projector=1&messagePartId=0.1

Liptak - Trump emergency docket - Supreme Court goes his way

Adam Liptak - NY Times

Trump emergency applications to Supreme Court

set record

 

  

Judge Luttig renounces Scotus allowing Education Department dismantling by Trump

https://open.substack.com/pub/judgeluttig327269/p/the-rule-of-law-is-the-only-king?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=zv1g

McMahon , Secretary of Education v. New York

 

 https://open.substack.com/pub/sherrilyn/p/facing-this-court?r=zv1g&selection=f8313926-219a-484f-8324-f5fffab4e984&utm_campaign=post-share-selection&utm_medium=web&aspectRatio=instagram&bgColor=%239A6600&textColor=%23ffffff

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1203_new_6j37.pdf

Sherilyn Ifill: Facing This court!!! [Ifill, former Counsel to the NAACP LDEF, teaches at Howard University.]

 

Facing this Court

A Sober Look at What to Expect in Trump v. Casa And What We Do About It

Sherrilyn Ifill

Jul 15, 2025

“None of this means that I am conceding defeat at this point. To the contrary. Even if, as I now believe, the conservative majority would be likely to rule in the President’s favor in Trump v. Casa if the merits were before them today, does not mean that the Court will in fact, ultimately rule in his favor. There’s still time. But it does mean that we must think now about how to create the conditions that can diminish the majority’s willingness to take such a dangerous step, and we must prepare the public for what it will mean if they do.”

I have spent a fair amount of time since last summer’s decision in Trump v. United States[i] trying o understand the contours of presidential power in the eyes of justices who constitute the conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Announcing that the President of the United States has immunity for any crimes committed in office so long as his actions could plausibly be described as “official acts,” was an astonishing and dangerous conferral of power on the president – especially on this president - who had shown himself in ways great and small, to be likely to use the cloak of immunity to commit acts even more lurid if he were returned to office than he had in his first term. Trump won the election, and his actions in Trump 2.0 reflect his full understanding of the gift of impunity provided by the Supreme Court.