In this newsletter, I probably spend a disproportionate amount of time updating you on the executive and legislative branches of government, and not enough on the judicial branch.
But the modern reality, of course, is that the fate of almost every major action that comes out of the first two branches ends up being decided by the third, which makes it critically important to report on as well — even if it’s harder to do so, since the judiciary isn’t nearly as transparent (or leaky) as its counterparts in the White House and Congress.
Still, with Congress on its August recess and the president on an extended vacation, I wanted to spend some time this morning looking at three judicial rulings handed down on Monday. Let’s dive in:
⏩ A federal district judge in Texas paused a Biden administration program that would offer legal status to about 500,000 undocumented immigrants who are married to U.S. citizens. 16 Republican-led states, led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, sued to block the program on Friday, arguing that it was an unconstitutional overstep of executive power; Judge J. Campbell Barker, a Trump appointee, issued an administrative stay on Monday ordering the administration to stop accepting applications to the program for two weeks while its legality is under review. Democrats had promoted the program as the largest step to shield undocumented immigrants from deportation since the Obama-era DACA program.
⏩ A three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals allowed a Florida law banning gender-affirming care for minors — and restricting such care for adults — to go into effect on Monday. A Clinton-appointed federal district judge had previously found the law, the first in the country limiting gender-affirming care for adults, unconstitutional; Monday’s order allows the law to be carried out while the appeals process is ongoing. The three-judge panel was made up of two Trump appointees, who sided with the state, and one Clinton appointee, who dissented.
⏩ A three-judge panel of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously overturned a Missouri law that banned state police from enforcing federal gun laws that don’t have an equivalent state law on the books. The law, which would have punished police officers with $50,000 fines for violations, had been on hold since the Supreme Court temporarily paused it in 2023. “A State cannot invalidate federal law to itself,” Judge Steven Colloton wrote in his Monday opinion, ruling that the law violated the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which gives federal law precedence over state laws. The panel was made up of appointees by George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama.
These rulings highlight one of the key stakes of the 2024 election: control of the judiciary. Especially with the end of the filibuster for judicial nominees, each president has the power to put a significant imprint on the judicial branch. Since taking office, President Biden has added 205 judges to the federal bench; by this point in his term, former President Trump had added nearly that many (203).
The next president will likely have the chance to fill one or more seats on the Supreme Court1 — although, as the trio of rulings highlighted today shows, district and circuit courts can also have vast influence over immigration, guns, gender, and other facets of American life.
Coming up: Many of the most consequential Supreme Court cases in recent years have come from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has become known as the foremost incubator of conservative jurisprudence in the country. In the next Supreme Court term, which begins in October, the justices are set to hear five cases from the 5th Circuit, the New York Times reports.
More news to know
Speaking of judges, a state court ruling that could have a major November impact, via AP:
Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein will remain on the ballot in the crucial swing state of Wisconsin after the state Supreme Court decided on Monday not to hear a Democratic challenge seeking to oust her.
And a Washington Post update on another high-stakes court case:
Special counsel Jack Smith urged an appeals court Monday to reverse U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon’s dismissal of Donald Trump’s classified-documents case, arguing that Attorney General Merrick Garland had clear authority to appoint Smith to lead the prosecution.
Smith wrote that Cannon ignored decades of precedent when she issued her stunning decision to toss out the entire indictment, in which she said Smith was wrongfully appointed and wielded too much power for someone who was not in a Senate-confirmed position.
The 60-page filing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit marks the latest salvo in what has become a contentious relationship between the special counsel and Cannon, who was nominated to the bench by Trump and confirmed just before he left office.
In measured language, Smith insisted Cannon’s dismissal of Trump’s indictment trampled on decades of legal precedent and Justice Department practice regarding the appointment of special or independent prosecutors.
Plus:
Former Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard endorsed Trump, who she is helping with debate prep.
Trump marked the third anniversary of the chaotic Afghanistan withdrawal with a wreath laying and a speech blaming Biden and Harris for the “collapse of American credibility and respect all around the world.” Neither Biden nor Harris appeared publicly to mark the anniversary.
Trump’s campaigning is spending almost $50,000 to air ads in south Florida, so the former president will see them at Mar-a-Lago.
Kamala Harris still hasn’t sat for an interview since launching her presidential campaign.
The Israeli military rescued a hostage held by Hamas in Gaza this morning. The hostage, Qaid Farhan Alkadi, was a 52-year-old Israeli Arab man who worked at a kibbutz.
The day ahead
President Biden is on vacation all week in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. He has not appeared publicly since his DNC speech last Monday.
Vice President Harris will deliver a video message to the African Methodist Episcopal Church’s annual conference in Columbus, Ohio.
Former President Trump has nothing on his schedule.
Sen. JD Vance will campaign in Big Rapids, Michigan.
The House and Senate are on recess.
That’s all for today. Have a good one! See you tomorrow.
Sonia Sotomayor, 70, is a prime candidate to retire if Kamala Harris wins in November. Samuel Alito, 74, and Clarence Thomas, 76, will likely consider stepping down if Donald Trump wins.
Regarding your point that Harris has not sat for an interview, I believe she should not do so. The media at large is fixated on that point so much so that makes me think someone, perhaps all, are looking for a "got you moment". Remarkably, it is way better that she interacts directly with voters who will decide this election, not some interviewer. My advice is "stay away from interviews" and keep talking to voters directly.
Regarding this (and prior comments/posts) raised about Harris not sitting for an interview …
From the Harris camp, it’s a simple risk vs benefit analysis.
1. What risk would she run by giving interviews = potentially significant risk, esp since many would only be looking for anti-Harris sounds bites and not really looking for information
versus
2. What is the potential benefit = not really much. It is pretty unlikely that she can say something in an interview that is going to swing a lot of voters her way.
As for me, I would much rather have her sit down with someone (even someone from her own camp) and just talk about her thoughts and plans for a presidency. A series of 10-15 minutes videos on various topics. Let her write the questions and topics, I don’t care. But I’d like to know what she wants the American people to know. Not using “rah rah rally” language, just normal conversational language.
Unfortunately, even that softball format probably gets torpedoed by risk vs benefit analysis, because again: is it really going to swing voters?
However, if someone really wants information then that would be a useful format.