The end of the deep state is here; Supreme Court seems likely to give Trump more power over agencies President Trump wants the Supreme Court to overturn a 90-year-old precedent limiting his ability to remove leaders of independent agencies. Portrait of Maureen GroppeMaureen Groppe USA TODAY Updated Dec. 8, 2025, 4:56 p.m. ET Deeper Dive BETA Which company sued over Trump's tariffs in a Supreme Court case? When did the Supreme Court hear arguments on Trump's agency firing case? What precedent does Trump seek to overturn regarding agency leadership removal? Which company sued over Trump's tariffs in a Supreme Court case? WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court appears likely to agree with President Donald Trump that he can fire at will the heads of some independent agencies, hearing arguments on Dec. 8 in a case that could redefine how more than a dozen agencies operate and shift power from Congress to the president. The agencies were set up by Congress to be led by politically balanced boards of experts serving staggered, fixed terms. But Trump argues presidential control will make agencies like the Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Federal Election Commission more accountable to voters who elect presidents. “The real-world consequences here are human beings exercising enormous governmental authority with a great deal of control over individuals and small and large businesses who ultimately do not answer to the president,” Solicitor General John Sauer told the justices during nearly 2 ½ hours of oral arguments. “That’s a power vacuum.” A lawyer for Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, a FTC commissioner fired by Trump, countered that independent agencies have been part of the nation's governing structure since 1790. “Any abstract theory that would wipe away so much history and precedent should be a nonstarter,” attorney Amit Agarwal argued. Conservative justices sympathetic to Trump's argument President Donald Trump shakes hands with Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 20, 2025. But the court’s conservative supermajority seemed more sympathetic to the Trump administration’s position. Most seemed to agree that the president should be able to remove leaders from at least some agencies and pushed only on how far that could go. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, for example, stressed early that he views the Federal Reserve differently. By contrast, the court’s three liberal justices tried to raise the alarm about the potential consequences of letting presidents control agencies that Congress tried to insulate from political interference. “The result of what you want is that the president is going to have massive, unchecked, uncontrolled power,” Justice Elena Kagan said, “not only to do traditional execution, but to make law through legislative and adjudicative frameworks." Get the Susan Page newsletter in your inbox. Get the latest story from Susan Page right in your inbox. Delivery: Varies Your Email In response, Justice Samuel Alito gave Sauer the chance to argue that the results won’t be disastrous. “In fact, our entire government will move towards accountability,” Sauer agreed. But Agarwal said a president could “just on a whim decide tomorrow that everything the agency has been doing is wrong.” Trump wants Supreme Court to overturn a 90-year-old precedent The headquarters of the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in Washington, DC, November 18, 2024. Trump wants the court to overturn a 1935 decision limiting a president's ability to remove leaders of multimember administrative agencies, a decision the court has been chipping away at since 2010. Under the “unitary executive theory” that conservatives have advanced for years, the Constitution gives presidents complete control over executive functions, which must include the power to remove commission members. In 1935, however, the Supreme Court said the FTC’s duties were “neither political nor executive, but predominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative.” The Department of Justice argues that even if that was a correct interpretation of the FTC in 1935 − which it disputes − it no longer is. Supreme Court could topple yet another campaign finance limit Supreme Court to take on controversial Trump policy on birthright citizenship Supreme Court lets Texas use congressional map favored by Trump Supreme Court not ready to tackle prayers at football games again Supreme Court to review controversial policy at US-Mexico border to limit asylum seekers Trump ratchets up pressure on Supreme Court not to overturn his tariffs Will the Supreme Court treat Trump's tariffs like Biden's policies? Amy Coney Barrett says 'I'm nobody's justice.' That includes Trump. “It was grievously wrong when decided,” Sauer told the justices. He had a receptive audience. Chief Justice John Roberts called that 1935 decision, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, a “dried husk of whatever people used to think it was” because it has “nothing to do with what the FTC looks like today.” But Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court’s most senior liberal justice, asked Sauer if the court has ever overturned such a long-standing precedent with a major impact on how the government operates. “You’re asking us to destroy the structure of government and to take away from Congress its ability to protect its idea that a government is better structured with some agencies that are independent,” she said. Expert predicts court will overturn Humprey's Executor Kevin King, a partner at Covington & Burling law firm who focuses on appellate and administrative and constitutional law matters, expects the court to overrule − not just further curtail − Humphrey’s Executor. That would mean Trump could remove heads of the FTC and of similar agencies. But King said Kagan’s probing about the potentially far-reaching consequences on other agencies could make a difference when the justices meet privately to discuss the case. “Even if Justice Kagan is not on the winning side of the vote here,” he said, “she nevertheless is influencing the court’s reasoning, and her questions may lead some of her colleagues to take a more cautious and narrow approach here.” Trump declared all federal agencies are under his control The Supreme Court from left, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Amy Coney Barrett, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan. After taking office, Trump declared that all federal agencies are under his control. “The days of rule by unelected bureaucrats are over,” the president said in a March address to Congress. That same month, Trump fired the two Democratic members of the five-member Federal Trade Commission board, Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya. The FTC enforces a variety of antitrust and consumer protection laws affecting virtually every area of commerce. He’d already removed Democratic members of two federal labor boards and would later fire the three Democrats on the CPSC. The Supreme Court allowed the firings to proceed while it decides whether Congress had the ability to limit the reasons regulators could be removed to “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” Supreme Court will later consider Federal Reserve case Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook attends the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City's 2025 Jackson Hole economic symposium, "Labor Markets in Transition: Demographics, Productivity, and Macroeconomic Policy" in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, on Aug. 23, 2025. One question hanging over the case is whether the court will treat the Federal Reserve Board of Governors differently, as the justices suggested they might earlier this year when issuing a temporary ruling about firing labor commission members without cause. And the court did not allow Trump to immediately fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, deciding instead to hear arguments in January on his claim that he has just cause to remove her. Slaughter’s and Cook’s cases are among at least four the justices are deciding in the coming months that test Trump’s expansive view of presidential authority. The court is also weighing whether Trump can impose sweeping tariffs on imports even though the Constitution gives Congress the power to raise revenue. And the court will decide if Trump's interpretation of the Constitution means he can deny citizenship to some babies born in the United States. A decision in Trump v. Slaughter is expected by the end of June.
-
Any interesting things in berkeley talk concerning free speech Thought for 9s The most recent flashpoint is a virtual talk UC Berkeley’s Students for Justice in Palestine hosted on the evening of October 7, 2026, titled “Al-Aqsa Flood Anniversary Talks.” Speaker Mohamed Abdou (author of Islam and Anarchism, formerly at Columbia, and on a virtual “Death to the Akademy” tour) spoke to roughly 25 people.Abdou described the third anniversary of Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attack—which the group itself calls Operation Al-Aqsa Flood—as “one of the most glorious days.” He linked U.S. settlement and Indigenous history to the Palestinian cause, argued students are complicit by attending universities built on “stolen land,” and said: “There is no free Palestine until a free Turtle Island. That means destroying it.” He has previously written that he was “with the muqawamah (the resistance) be it Hamas and Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad but up to a point.” Coverage and criticism also cite earlier remarks attributed to him telling students to “be proud of your hate for America.”Jewish student groups and organizations including the Jewish Student Union, AMCHA Initiative, and Combat Antisemitism Movement called the framing of the attack immoral or dangerous and asked the campus to deny him a platform. AMCHA explicitly said the event involved free speech, which it supports, while still flagging the rhetoric. UC Berkeley spokesperson Dan Mogulof replied that the First Amendment protects the expression, while speech that constitutes harassment or discrimination on a protected category is not protected.That same day, Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky gave his annual Supreme Court talk at the Berkeley City Club. It included discussion of his recent book with UC Irvine Chancellor Howard Gillman, Campus Speech and Academic Freedom: A Guide for Difficult Times, which addresses protest rules, disruption, and government pressure on faculty speech after the Gaza war. In an August 2026 message to the law school, Chemerinsky restated an all-comers policy for student groups, time-place-manner limits, and the view that even protected speech can trigger institutional duties if it creates a hostile environment, while disruption of events will not be tolerated.
-
-
A veteran is a person who served in the active military, naval, air, or space service and was discharged or released under conditions other than dishonorable.Military DefinitionService: Full-time duty in a branch of the Armed Forces (such as the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard).Discharge: Separation from service under honorable conditions, meaning it was not a dishonorable discharge.Combat: Combat experience is not required to be a veteran; anyone who completed their required service time is included.Reserves and National Guard: Members of these branches qualify if they were called to federal active duty by presidential order.General DefinitionThe word also means a person who has long experience or a lot of skill in a specific job, field, or activity (such as a "political veteran").
-
Gov. Gavin Newsom targets antisemitism in California schools with new law In signing the law, Newsom rebuffed objections from the state's main teachers union and others. Gavin Newsom sits with students in elementary school classroom. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a measure aiming to clamp down on antisemitism in schools on Tuesday. | Rich Pedroncelli/AP By Eric He 10/07/2025 04:06 PM EDT Updated: 10/07/2025 08:08 PM EDT Gov. Gavin Newsom on Tuesday signed into law a controversial bill that aims to clamp down on antisemitism in schools, shrugging off objections by a powerful teachers union and others that it will restrict what teachers can say about Israel’s war in Gaza and other hot button topics. The bill, AB 715, cleared both chambers of the Legislature unanimously in votes that belied the tensions leading up to its passage in the final hours of legislative session earlier this month. During a last-minute hearing to debate the bill, the chair of an Assembly committee vented he was being forced to “choose between fighting antisemitism and supporting a bad policy bill that is opposed by every single education advocacy organization.” 00:00 02:00 Read More Newsom rejected such concerns and was unswayed by opposition from the California Teachers Association, a major force in state politics. He sided instead with the Jewish Legislative Caucus and leading Jewish organizations such as Jewish Public Affairs Committee of California, which had made the measure their only legislative priority for the year. In pushing for the bill, the groups cited a surge in antisemitic incidents in California and members recounted their own experiences, particularly amid the turmoil in the Middle East following Hamas’ attack on Israel two years ago. Tuesday marked the second anniversary of the attack. “At a time when antisemitism and bigotry are rising nationwide and globally, these laws make clear: our schools must be places of learning, not hate,” Newsom said in a statement. Much of the requirements in the law, which takes effect on January 1, are open to interpretation. Teachers must be “factually accurate” in lessons and adhere to unspecified “standards of professional responsibility,” while avoiding “advocacy, personal opinion, bias or partisanship.” It also creates an Office of Civil Rights within a state agency, which will include an “antisemitism prevention coordinator” to consult with school districts and advise lawmakers on preventing antisemitism in schools. Newsom on Tuesday also signed SB 48, a companion bill that creates four additional coordinator positions meant to guard against discrimination based on someone’s religious beliefs, race and ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation. The coordinator positions were part of a late deal the Jewish caucus made with other diversity caucuses, whose members objected to a bill focusing only on antisemitism. The two measures were contingent on the other passing. Despite that agreement, education groups, the American Civil Liberties Union, and other groups still urged Newsom to veto the bill. The ACLU, in a letter to the governor, claimed the measure contains “vague and overbroad provisions” that will restrict curriculum that is inclusive and historically relevant, create a chilling effect on students and teachers and invite lawsuits. The Council on American-Islamic Relations blasted the bill in a letter to Newsom as “especially harmful to the mental and emotional well-being of Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim youth,” saying AB 715 rendered their stories “invisible and even punishable, deepening feelings of isolation and alienation at a time when they most need affirmation and inclusion.” In a public message to the legislature explaining his decision to sign the law, Newsom called for follow-up legislation next year to address those concerns, noting that “representatives from the entire education ecosystem ... expressed deep commitment to the goals of the bill, along with urgent concerns about unintended consequences.” “Public schools play a foundational role in our democracy, and we must continue to make our schools safe learning environments for all students while fostering critical thinking skills in the context of challenging conversations,” Newsom said. David Goldberg, president of the California Teachers Association, highlighted Newsom’s comments on unintended consequences, calling them “significant.” “At a time when too many are seeking to attack academic freedom and weaponize public education, AB 715 would unfortunately arm ill-intentioned people with the ability to do so,” Goldberg said. Democratic Assemblymembers Rick Chavez Zbur and Dawn Addis, introduced the antisemitism measure in July after an earlier piece of legislation, which would have placed tight guardrails on curriculum for ethnic studies classes, was knocked down by the teachers union and other education groups. To drum up needed support for AB 715, Zbur and Addis agreed to major amendments during the last week of the legislative session, including the removal of language on what constitutes an “antisemitic learning environment.” David Bocarsly, executive director of JPAC, called the signing a “historic day for California’s Jewish community and for every child who has ever felt unsafe, unseen, or unwelcome at school.” “By signing AB 715, Governor Newsom has sent a clear and powerful message: antisemitism, like all forms of hate, has no place in our public schools, period,” Bocarsly said. “This law is more than policy – it is a promise that Jewish children, their families, and all students, deserve a great public education and classrooms free from hate and discrimination.” Watch: The Conversation Play Video1:40 Kevin O'Leary: US stake in Intel is 'waste of taxpayer dollars' Filed Under: California
-
-
-
-
-
-
No comments:
Post a Comment