President Donald Trump has asserted the U.S. is facing a crisis, advocating for expanded powers and National Guard deployments, particularly in Democrat-led states. Federal courts in Illinois and Oregon have pushed back Trump’s claims, rejecting assertions of widespread unrest. In Illinois, Trump called Chicago a “warzone” to justify federal intervention, but Judge April Perry ruled protests were small and managed.
Perry stated, “There was no such rebellion or danger of one.” She added that the administration’s claims of unrest were “simply unreliable” and showed a “lack of credibility.”In Portland, Judge Karin Immergut dismissed claims of domestic terrorism, noting protests were mostly contained and had declined by the time of Trump’s intervention order. Trump stated, “Portland is almost an insurrection.”
Immergut said, “The protests have been such a minor issue, that the normal nightlife in downtown Portland has required more police resources than the ICE facility.”
Tag Archives: Supreme Court
Daily Mail: Setback for Hegseth as Pentagon rebrand halted by judge
Pentagon boss Pete Hegseth faced yet another setback in his mission to rebrand the US military as a photogenic ‘warrior’ class following a lawsuit from school children.
The Defense Department was hit with the legal action after Hegseth ordered military schools to remove hundreds of books about race and sex due to their allegedly ‘woke‘ content.
Some of the banned books include Maya Angelou’s classic novel I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings and State of Emergency with a foreword by Cardi B.
In a shock move, a federal judge said Hegseth’s order violated First Amendment rights following a lawsuit brought on behalf of pre-K to 11th grade students.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15218743/amp/pete-hegseth-pentagon-war-woke-lawsuit.html
Reason: Homeland Security Won’t Stop Lying About Who Immigration Enforcers Are Arresting
In case after case, Homeland Security’s Public Affairs Office releases incorrect information about arrests carried out by federal immigration officers.
If you’ve spent any time reading the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) public statements lately, you’ve probably gotten a strong whiff of what Tennessee Williams once called the “powerful and obnoxious odor of mendacity.”
Of course, all governments since time immemorial have lied, but it’s been hard not to notice, especially for reporters, the decline in reliable information being released by the federal government, particularly the DHS Office of Public Affairs, which is responsible for distributing public information about the Trump administration’s mass deportation program.
Associated Press: Black enrollment is waning at many elite colleges after affirmative action ban, AP analysis finds
After decades of gradual growth, the number of Black students enrolling at many elite colleges has dropped in the two years since the Supreme Court banned affirmative action in admissions, leaving some campuses with Black populations as small as 2% of their freshman class, according to an Associated Press analysis.
New enrollment figures from 20 selective colleges provide mounting evidence of a backslide in Black enrollment. On almost all of the campuses, Black students account for a smaller share of new students this fall than in 2023. At Princeton and some others, the number of new Black students has fallen by nearly half in that span.
USA Today: Trump amps up military, CIA action against Venezuela. Here’s what to know.
The United States has bombed six ships near Venezuela President Donald Trump greenlit the CIA to operate inside the country. Why is this happening?
The Trump administration is poised to massively raise the stakes in its feud with the regime of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, who it accuses of supporting narcotrafficking and collusion with drug cartels.
President Donald Trump‘s startling Oct. 15 announcement that on-land strikes against Venezuela could come soon, which follows six strikes on Venezuelan boats that have killed more than two dozen people, raises questions as to what caused Trump’s sudden aggression and where it will lead.
Maduro has already offered Venezuela’s natural resources, Trump said Oct. 17. “You know why? Because he doesn’t want to f— around with the United States,” he added.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/10/18/trump-venezuela-war-maduro/86731362007
You tell ’em, Bully Boy Donald, draft dodger that never risked your own life for anything!
CBS News: Tensions rising in Portland, Oregon, over immigration tactics [Video]
The Trump administration is awaiting word from the Supreme Court after asking it to allow the immediate deployment of National Guard troops to Illinois to protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. A lower court blocked the move. Camilo Montoya-Galvez reports from Portland, Oregon, where tensions are rising over ICE tactics.
MSNBC: JB Pritzker puts Stephen Miller on notice: He will be held ‘accountable’
The Illinois governor also accused Miller of “taking advantage” of Trump’s “diminished capacity” to carry out aggressive immigration enforcement.

https://www.msnbc.com/top-stories/latest/chicago-ice-jb-pritzker-trump-stephen-miller-rcna238264
Newsweek: Ex-Clarence Thomas clerk sounds alarm on expected Supreme Court move
A former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas has issued a detailed warning about the Supreme Court‘s accelerating push to expand presidential power over federal agencies, coinciding with active cases that could overturn decades of precedent.
Caleb Nelson, a distinguished professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, published an analysis in September through NYU Law’s Democracy Project titled “Special Feature: Must Administrative Officers Serve at the President’s Pleasure?”, challenging the Court’s interpretation of presidential removal authority.
The alarm bells come as the Court prepares to hear arguments on whether President Donald Trump can fire officials at independent agencies without cause, with cases involving Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Federal Reserve officials already pending.
Newsweek reached out to the Supreme Court’s public information office via online form and the White House via email on Monday for comment.
Why It Matters
The Supreme Court’s trajectory on removal power could fundamentally restructure American government, affecting everything from consumer protection to monetary policy.
The stakes extend beyond theoretical constitutional interpretation. The Court has already allowed the Trump administration to proceed with mass immigration program terminations and other major policy changes through emergency orders while litigation continues, demonstrating the immediate real-world impact of these judicial decisions.
If the Court expands presidential removal authority, it would enable the White House to rapidly replace independent regulators and carry out major policy changes before courts can review them, with fewer practical checks on abrupt shifts in direction.
At stake is whether independent agencies like the FTC and Federal Reserve can maintain insulation from partisan political control.
What To Know
The constitutional dispute centers on a seemingly simple question with complex implications: who can fire federal officials, and under what circumstances?
Nelson explains that while Article II vests executive power in the president, the Constitution remains largely silent on removal except for impeachment. This silence has become a battleground for competing interpretations.
Chief Justice John Roberts has led the charge toward expanded presidential power, writing in Seila Law v. CFPB (2020) that presidential removal authority “follows from the text of Article II, was settled by the First Congress, and was confirmed in the landmark decision Myers v. United States.” The Court appears poised to extend this reasoning further, potentially overturning Humphrey’s Executor (1935), which has protected independent agency officials from at-will removal for nearly ninety years.
Nelson systematically challenges each pillar of Roberts’s argument.
He disputes that Article II’s “executive Power” includes the English monarch’s historical removal powers, citing recent scholarship distinguishing between executive authority and royal prerogative. He also contests the historical narrative about the First Congress, arguing that careful examination of 1789 debates reveals no consensus on presidential removal power, despite current Court assertions.
The practical implications are already visible. Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck wrote on Substack earlier this month that the Trump administration sought emergency action from the Court 19 times in its first 20 weeks—matching the former President Joe Biden administration’s total over four years—and succeeded in 10 of 12 decided applications.
Recent immigration cases demonstrate this pattern: the Court allowed termination of parole programs for hundreds of thousands of migrants and permitted deportations to proceed despite lower court injunctions requiring notice and opportunity to seek protection.
What People Are Saying
Professor Caleb Nelson, in his analysis: “If most of what the federal government currently does on a daily basis is ‘executive,’ and if the President must have full control over each and every exercise of ‘executive’ power by the federal government (including an unlimitable ability to remove all or almost all executive officers for reasons good or bad), then the President has an enormous amount of power—more power, I think, than any sensible person should want anyone to have, and more power than any member of the founding generation could have anticipated.”
He added: “I am an originalist, and if the original meaning of the Constitution compelled this outcome, I would be inclined to agree that the Supreme Court should respect it until the Constitution is amended through the proper processes. But both the text and the history of Article II are far more equivocal than the current Court has been suggesting. In the face of such ambiguities, I hope that the Justices will not act as if their hands are tied and they cannot consider any consequences of the interpretations that they choose.”
Judge Clay D. Land, Middle District of Georgia, in a May decision: “Allowing constitutional rights to be dependent upon the grace of the executive branch would be a dereliction of duty by this third and independent branch of government and would be against the public interest.”
Justice Elena Kagan, at a judicial conference in California in July: “Courts are supposed to explain things. Offering reasons for judicial decisions is an essential protection against arbitrary power—to ensure that like cases are being treated alike.”
What Happens Next
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in November regarding presidential authority to impose tariffs under emergency powers, while removal cases involving FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter and Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook await resolution.
The Court’s decisions could eliminate statutory protections for independent agency officials, potentially affecting thousands of positions across agencies overseeing financial markets, consumer protection, communications, and trade.

https://www.newsweek.com/ex-clarence-thomas-clerk-sounds-alarm-expected-supreme-court-move-10873224
Chicago Tribune: Gov. JB Pritzker says President Trump deploying troops to Chicago due to ‘dementia’ and obsessive fixations
In a scathing critique of President Donald Trump, Gov. JB Pritzker on Tuesday accused the Republican president of deploying National Guard troops to the Democratic cities of Chicago and Portland based on fixations that stem in part from his being mentally impaired.
“This is a man who’s suffering dementia,” Pritzker said in a telephone interview with the Tribune. “This is a man who has something stuck in his head. He can’t get it out of his head. He doesn’t read. He doesn’t know anything that’s up to date. It’s just something in the recesses of his brain that is effectuating to have him call out these cities.
“And then, unfortunately, he has the power of the military, the power of the federal government to do his bidding, and that’s what he’s doing.”
The governor’s comments came as National Guard troops from Texas were assembling at a U.S. Army Reserve training center in far southwest suburban Elwood and Trump’s administration was moving forward with deploying 300 members of the Illinois National Guard for at least 60 days over the vocal and legal objections of Pritzker and other local elected leaders.
The Trump administration has said the troops are needed to protect federal agents and facilities involved in its ongoing deportation surge and has sought to do much the same in Portland, Oregon, though those efforts have been stymied so far by temporary court rulings. A federal judge in Chicago is expected to hold a hearing this week over the legal effort by Illinois and Chicago to block the deployments, which Pritzker and other local officials say is not only unnecessary but a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act that prohibits the use of U.S. military assets from taking part in law enforcement actions on domestic soil.
During the interview, Pritzker — who has been one of Trump’s harshest critics and is a potential 2028 presidential Democratic candidate — said the courts will play an integral role in challenging Trump’s efforts in Illinois and across the nation.
“We’re not going to go to war between the state of Illinois and the federal government, not taking up arms against the federal government,” Pritzker said. “But we are monitoring everything they’re doing, and using that monitoring to win in court.”
Pritzker also said he has not had any conversations with his staff or other Democratic governors regarding a so-called soft secession, a political and legal theory that has grown during Trump’s second term in which Democratic states would gradually withdraw their cooperation with the federal government, including withholding financial support, without formally leaving the Union.
“Preparing for and going to court with the law on our side and winning in court is important,” he continued. “It is the most important thing that we can do legally. If there are people who are suggesting there are things that we should do that are illegal. I would suggest to you, we’re not going to do those things.”
But even as the governor said he was counting on winning in the courts, Trump was openly exploring options to circumvent them.
Speaking in the Oval Office on Tuesday, the president reiterated that he was considering employing the two-century-old Insurrection Act to get around legal court orders that would deny him the ability to deploy National Guard troops to cities such as Chicago and Portland over governors’ objections.
“It’s been invoked before,” Trump said of the law, which the Brennan Center for Justice said has been used 30 times, starting with President George Washington, to quell the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794.
Trump says he’d consider Ghislaine Maxwell pardon and mentions Diddy in same breath as Epstein pal: ‘Have to take a look’
The Insurrection Act is an exception to Posse Comitatus and allows a president to deploy the military to “suppress rebellion” or “insurrection” when enforcing federal law becomes “impracticable.”
Past Supreme Court rulings have given the president broad discretionary powers to decide if conditions have been met to invoke the Insurrection Act, but it has left the door open for judicial review to determine if a president invoked the law “in bad faith” or in going beyond “a permitted range of honest judgment.” And the actions of the military, once invoked, are also subject to judicial review.
The last time the Insurrection Act was invoked was by President George H.W. Bush during the Los Angeles riots of 1992, with the support of California Gov. Pete Wilson. It also was used in Chicago in 1968 by President Lyndon Johnson to curb rioting over the assassination of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. with the backing of Mayor Richard J. Daley and acting Gov. Samuel Shapiro.
But the last time it was invoked over the opposition of a sitting governor was in 1965 when Johnson used it to federalize troops to protect civil rights marchers in Montgomery, Alabama, over the objections of segregationist Gov. George Wallace.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously invoked the act in 1957 to order the Arkansas National Guard to stand down from its orders from Gov. Orval Faubus to prevent the segregation of Little Rock’s public schools following the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education ruling. Eisenhower also deployed the Army’s 101st Airborne Division to protect Black students attending classes.
As Pritzker has sought to counter Trump on nearly every front, he has joined California Gov. Gavin Newsom in threatening to leave the bipartisan National Governors Association because the organization hasn’t spoken out against Trump’s National Guard mobilizations.
In the Tribune interview, Pritzker noted how nearly all 50 state governors at the time signed on to an April 29, 2024, letter to then-President Joe Biden’s administration opposing the military’s push in Congress to forcibly transfer Air National Guard units performing space missions into the U.S. Space Force without the governors’ consent.
Among those who signed were then-GOP South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, who now heads the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, overseeing the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency and Border Patrol.
“Well, I’m somebody who likes to reach out and do things in a bipartisan fashion, and I’ve attended NGA events and had friendly relationships with some Republican governors in the past, and the NGA has an important role. But not if it’s unwilling to stand up in this moment and speak on behalf of states’ rights the way that it always has,” Pritzker said. “So I don’t know how I can trust that the NGA actually does stand up for the states with Republicans in charge, apparently they’re just going to do Donald Trump’s bidding.”
Pritzker also continued to defend the process and timing of the Illinois attorney general’s office in filing a lawsuit to halt the National Guard activations, which wasn’t filed until Monday, two days after U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a memo about the Illinois National Guard deployments. This is despite Pritzker and Attorney General Kwame Raoul knowing for weeks that Trump had threatened to send the military to the streets of the Chicago area.
“You have to understand legal proceedings. In order for you to bring a lawsuit of any sort, you have to have what’s called ripeness. It has to be ripe. That means there has to be some action that’s taken to demonstrate that the wrong is being effectuated,” said Pritzker, calling any questions about the timing of the suit “a false avenue to follow.” “Just because someone says they’re going to call out the National Guard to do this in Illinois, until they do, you can’t file suit.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/gov-jb-pritzker-says-president-233400557.html
