A Brutally Honest Look at the Justice Department's Struggles Under Trump
Trump's plans encounter judicial obstacles as legal experts from the Department of Justice experience difficulties convincing judges in court
So, you wanna talk about the Justice Department's rocky ride representing Trump's positions in court? Let's dive right in!
Last week, the administration took a couple of hits that sent ripples through its agenda. In different courts, judges didn't exactly roll out the red carpet for the White House's plans. One judge blocked a scheme to add a proof-of-citizenship requirement to the federal voter registration form, while another ruled that the administration had breached a settlement agreement by shipping a man to El Salvador. Yet another halted directives threatening to slice federal funding for schools with diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.
But that's just the tip of the iceberg. If you've been keeping tabs, you know that two judges have expressed some major doubts about the legality of Trump's executive orders targeting big-shot law firms. That's not all. One day, a government lawyer accidentally leaked an internal memo questioning the Trump administration's legal strategy to crush Manhattan's congestion toll - and the Department of Transportation called it a doozy of a blunder.
It's safe to say that the Trump administration's quest to reshape American society, from cracking down on illegal immigration to scaling back the federal government, is meeting resistance from a wide range of judges. These lawyers sometimes struggle to answer judges' questions about the basis or reasoning behind a particular policy, or about how the policy will be implemented. In fact, in one instance, a government lawyer got all exasperated in court at the lack of detail he was given from the administration and was soon given the boot by the Justice Department.
Making things even trickier? A lot of the key arguments in recent weeks have been handled by lawyers who've recently joined the department for political, rather than career, gigs.
The Lowdown on the Trump Administration
- Check out these 7 Americans' thoughts on Trump's first 100 days
- Curious about Trump's plans for massive deportations to Mexico? We've got ya covered.
- The Trump administration backs off 100% withholding for Social Security clawbacks.
- Whitmer's cozying up to Trump could spark some backlash from Democrats in Michigan.
- Stay informed: Trump executive orders, plus legal challenges in WA.**
- Keep up-to-date: Our comprehensive collection of stories about President Trump and the executive branch.
Some folks say that the losses the Trump administration is experiencing are due to "activist" judges who just can't stand the idea of Trump's agenda moving forward. Some White House pals have even called for impeaching judges, claiming it's a "judicial coup."
But guess what? Conservative judges like J. Harvie Wilkinson III (yep, an appointee of Ronald Reagan) have dished out some stinging rebukes to the Justice Department's arguments. In one instance, Wilkinson said that the government's idea that it couldn't send a man it had deported back to the U.S. was "shocking" and "against the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans hold dear."
Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, warned against jumping to conclusions about the Trump administration's legal track record. The Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority (and three Trump appointees), is still waiting in the wings for its say on the vast majority of cases.
But hey, sometimes the Trump administration has managed to beat back legal challenges. For example, a federal appeals court once cleared the way for the administration to fire thousands of probationary workers, despite a lower court's opinion. In another case, the Supreme Court reinstated the administration's ability to deport Venezuelan migrants, although the justices said the migrants had to have a chance to argue their case before being shipped out.
The administration also recently won approval to slash hundreds of millions of dollars in teacher training money while a lawsuit is still pending.
Most Popular Nation & World Stories
- The Gates Foundation is feeling the heat from Trump's threats.
- Two people plummet to their deaths in Utah's Bryce Canyon National Park.
- Mom and dad were deported. What happened to their toddler?
- The Trump administration retreats from 100% withholding on Social Security clawbacks.
- Jeff Sperbeck, former agent for John Elway, dies after injury at 62.
The challenges, however, became crystal clear in a Washington courtroom last week. Richard Lawson, a newly minted deputy associate attorney general, struggled to provide basic info about one in a series of executive orders targeting a major law firm with heavy-handed sanctions. The judge put it nicely: "So you don't know whether the firm or the individuals whose security clearances were suspended have been given any notice about the timing, who the decision-maker is, the information being reviewed, whether they'll be able to see it, comment on it, correct it, or object to it?"
Lawson wasn't exactly MacGyver when it came to explaining the administration's national security rationale for whacking a different law firm. A judge asked if having someone employed four years ago posed some sort of national security danger. Lawson's response? "Not necessarily, no."
In another case, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly called out the Justice Department in court papers over what she deemed the "contradiction" between statements made in court by one of its lawyers and "the facts on the ground." Although the judge didn't accuse the lawyer of intentionally misrepresenting the facts, she did express her dismay: "The Court must remark that this exchange does not reflect the level of diligence the Court expects from any litigant - let alone the United States Department of Justice."
Stuart Gerson, who ran the Justice Department's civil division under George H.W. Bush and served briefly as acting attorney general, said it seemed like the Trump administration was sending lawyers into court "without adequate information and instructions."
"I sympathize greatly with these folks who are arguing some of the cases and just parroting what they've been told to say without being able to answer questions about their ramifications, the what-ifs, and the background information," Gerson added.
Want to stay updated on the U.S. Department of Justice? Follow the AP's coverage here: https://apnews.com/hub/us-department-of-justice
- The government's plans for policy changes, including the addition of a proof-of-citizenship requirement to the federal voter registration form, have been blocked by some judges.
- The administration's plans for school funding were halted by a judge who ruled that the administration had breached a settlement agreement.
- Some judges have expressed doubts about the legality of Trump's executive orders targeting big-shot law firms.
- In Seattle and Washington courts, judges have been questioning the government's arguments and their implementation details.
- Jonathan Weissmann, a law professor at Seattle University, criticized the administration's handling of legal cases.
- The Trump administration's stance on car accidents and fires has not been clearly defined in the political and general news.
- The government's policy on crime and justice has been misrepresented in court, according to some judges.
- The Department of Justice was called out by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly for contradictions between court statements and "the facts on the ground."
- Stuart Gerson, a former member of the Department of Justice during George H.W. Bush's administration, criticized the Trump administration for sending underprepared lawyers to court.
- The circulation of internal memos questioning the Trump administration's legal strategy has become common, as in the case of crush Manhattan's congestion toll.
- The sports world, particularly baseball in the MLB, has not been significantly affected by war-and-conflicts or policy-and-legislation decisions made during Trump's presidency.
