Month: December 2025

The public has been hearing from a lot of federal judges over the past year, much more than normal. That’s because many of them are concerned about the Trump administration’s commitment to the rule of law.

Dickinson College President John E. Jones III was appointed as a federal judge by President George W. Bush and spent 20 years on the bench after being confirmed unanimously by the U.S. Senate in 2002. Jones spoke with The Conversation U.S. senior politics editor, Naomi Schalit, about America’s legal landscape after almost a year of Donald Trump’s presidency.

What does the case just argued at the Supreme Court about the president’s ability to fire leaders at independent agencies tell you about Donald Trump’s presidency?

We’ve seen a progression over time, with both Republican and Democratic presidents, where there’s been a stronger and stronger chief executive. But there’s been nothing like this administration, where the president has fired members of heretofore independent agencies. Having listened to oral arguments, which at times can be misleading, there’s very little question that the Supreme Court is going to overturn the “Humphreys Executor” precedent.

---

Read more:
Supreme Court ignores precedent instead of overruling it in allowing president to fire officials whom Congress tried to make independent

---

What it means is that this president will have the opportunity to
utterly remake all of these independent agencies now. He’s going to take people out, root and branch, and put folks in who are either with the program or they’re not going to get appointed.

So this case is emblematic of Trump’s approach to presidential power?

He does not recognize and does not want among his appointees – certainly we see this in the Cabinet – any modicum of independence. You’re either with him 100% or you’re against him. Now that will extend to these independent agencies, and that means that the measured sort of regulations that have existed for a long time are going to be disrupted and maybe even eliminated.

This year has seen unusual amounts of activity in the Supreme Court’s shadow docket. What is the significance of that?

This is the court’s emergency docket. If the court takes these cases, they order a very abbreviated briefing and they decide the matter very quickly. Typically, this is a problem for lower court judges, as the cases are decided with very little explanation.

Sometimes months and months intervene before the court gets back to that case and renders a full and complete determination. One example would be the birthright citizenship case that came up to the court on the shadow docket. The court rendered an interim decision about whether U.S. District Court judges could issue orders stopping nationwide enforcement of Trump policies. They didn’t rule on the merits of the birthright citizenship case.

Since then, there have been conflicting decisions across the country. You have circuits that have ruled on the question and other circuits that haven’t ruled on it at all. So depending on where you live in the United States, you may or may not be subject to what heretofore has been the accepted interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

This administration’s clear strategy – to flood the zone by simply challenging every adverse decision against it in the lower courts – means there are an unprecedented number of cases coming up to the Supreme Court. It just means that there’s utter confusion in the lower courts, and it’s been the subject of a lot of dissatisfaction among lower court judges. It really puts the federal court system into a state of uncertainty and chaos, and obviously it’s not good for the public.

U.S. attorneys are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Congress limits how long interim U.S. attorneys can serve in these positions. But the Trump administration has circumvented those limits, keeping a number of interim U.S. attorneys on the job past the 120-day limit. These cases have been challenged in court. Why is this conflict notable?

What the president has attempted to do flies in the face of legislation that says that these interim appointments are limited to 120 days. Every court has found that the president’s appointment or attempted appointment beyond the first 120 days is unlawful and unconstitutional. It is a limitation on the president’s power.

If the president’s version were correct, you could just have endless interim appointments without any involvement by the Senate. This is a place where the courts have, in effect, upheld the integrity of the advice-and-consent system and the constitutional role of the Senate.

Trump ordered the Department of Justice to prosecute James Comey and Letitia James, among others. He has also granted massive numbers of pardons and commutations. What are your thoughts on these?

My takeaway as an American citizen and as a former judge is that at bottom, President Trump simply lacks respect for our system of justice.

I don’t think you can find otherwise when on your first day in office you issue over 1,000 pardons for people who were justifiably convicted or pled guilty to what was, by any account, an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021. He has pardoned countless people since then, including a former president of Honduras who his own administration prosecuted and for which there was abundant evidence that he was a drug trafficker. He’s blowing up boats in the Caribbean without, in my view, any rationale that’s grounded in law. The president believes the law is whatever he says it is at any given moment.

As to the Department of Justice, I think that’s one of the most worrisome things about this administration. There is a seamless interface between the White House and the Department of Justice that is problematic, and it is quite clear that the Department of Justice will do anything that the president wants.

I think we’re in a very, very difficult and dark place when the president by fiat can simply order his attorney general to prosecute a person. And I think every American should worry about a world where that takes place without any buffer.

The administration has a documented pattern of disobeying or sidestepping court orders. Your thoughts?

The way our system is supposed to work is that people can disagree with lower court decisions, but they have to obey them, unless they’re stayed by application to a higher court. The administration seems to have decided that they’re going to write U.S. district judges out of the picture and simply disregard their orders.

When I served as a U.S. District Court judge, I always understood that I had pretty awesome power to do things. That power was to be used sparingly and carefully, but when I ordered something, I expected that that order would be followed.

That is the nature of the rule of law and our system of justice that now has been turned on its head by this administration.

The second point is that I would wish that our Supreme Court
would take a stronger stand against this kind of gamesmanship in the lower courts. Those who serve in the third branch – the nation’s courts – are all in this together. There has to be more attention given to an administration that has really gone rogue in terms of how they treat the orders of U.S. District Court judges.

I don’t think the public has ever heard more from judges or former judges or retired judges than they are hearing right now. That includes you, president of a university, former federal judge, saying things that I think the public isn’t accustomed to hearing from either current or former judges. What’s going on?

What’s happening is that judges who come from all stripes, philosophically and party affiliations, are deeply concerned and offended about the tenor of the times, and they feel the need, as I do, to become active and to rally to the support of our system of justice. Imperfect though it may be, I’ve always regarded it as the fairest and best system in the world.

John E. Jones III is affiliated with Keep Our Republic’s Article Three Coalition.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

Democrat Nida Allam is launching a primary challenge against Rep. Valerie Foushee (D-N.C.), she announced Thursday, joining a growing list of candidates vying to unseat House Democrats with a slate of progressive endorsements already in tow.

The Durham County commissioner is the latest progressive to launch an insurgent campaign against a Democratic incumbent, reinforcing what she describes as renewed energy in fighting against “Trump’s authoritarianism.” Her entrance into the race comes with a slew of progressive support — including from Justice Democrats, David Hogg’s Leaders We Deserve and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — an early inundation of endorsements that quickly adds salience to the 31-year-old commissioner’s bid for office.

“I’m not here to stay quiet while Washington fails us,” Allam said in her campaign announcement Thursday. “I’m here to fight for the people who built this district.”

In launching her bid, Allam panned Foushee, 69, as a “silent” voice in Congress, asserting that constituents are looking for action that reaches beyond “strongly worded letters and Tweets.”

In a statement Thursday, Foushee — who’s served two terms in Congress — said her commitment to her district “remains unchanged” in the face of the emerging primary challenge, pointing to her past wins in advancing progressive legislation in Congress.

“Without listening to my constituents, I would not be able to properly reflect our community’s needs in Congress, like fighting back against Trump’s billionaire tax breaks, helping to uncover Elon Musk’s illegal interference in government contracts, and voting against the National Defense Authorization Act,” she wrote in the statement.

Other progressive organizations like the Working Families Party and the Sunrise Movement have already thrown support behind Allam, who they say has the resolve needed to buck the Trump administration — and veteran Democrats — in representing the working class in Congress.

Allam’s entrance into the race for North Carolina’s 4th Congressional District — a blue, Durham-based district — marks the second candidate in just a matter of days to announce plans to oust a sitting Democrat from Congress, with backing from major progressive players.

On Wednesday, Brooklyn progressive Brad Lander announced he’d challenge Rep. Dan Goldman for his seat in a district that New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani carried. His bid — which zeroed in on ramping up resistance against the Trump administration — quickly accrued support from the Democratic base’s left flank, including from the Working Families Party, Mamdani and Sanders.

​Politics

Indiana Republicans withstood immense pressure from President Donald Trump, ignoring anonymous threats on their lives as they defeated his plan to redraw the state’s congressional map and dealt him one of his most significant political setbacks since his return to the White House.

The GOP-controlled state Senate on Thursday voted down 31 to 19 the map that would have gerrymandered two more safe red seats, imperiling the party’s chances at holding control of Congress next November.

The failed vote is the culmination of a brass-knuckled, four-month pressure campaign from the White House on recalcitrant Indiana Republicans that included private meetings and public shaming from Trump, multiple visits to the Hoosier State from Vice President JD Vance, whip calls from Speaker Mike Johnson and veiled threats of withheld federal funds. The hesitant local lawmakers held out in spite of pipe bomb threats, unsolicited pizza deliveries to their personal addresses and swattings of their homes.

“The forces that define (the) vitriolic political affairs in places outside of Indiana have been gradually and now very blatantly infiltrat(ing) the political affairs in Indiana,” Indiana state Sen. Greg Goode, a Republican, said in his floor speech before voting against the measure. “Misinformation. Cruel social media posts over the top pressure from within the state house and outside, threats of primaries, threats of violence, acts of violence. Friends, we’re better than this.”

Speaking Thursday night from the Oval Office, Trump lambasted Bray, who oversaw the defeat of the remapping push.

“Bray, whatever his name is,” Trump said, threatening to “certainly support anybody that wants to go against him,” and reasoning that he had “done a tremendous disservice.”

“It’s funny ‘cause I won Indiana all three times by a landslide, and I wasn’t working on it very hard,” Trump said, despite his team’s well documented involvement in the matter.

Top MAGA allies sounded far more concerned.

“We have a huge problem,” said former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, who simulcasted The War Room show live from a suburban Indianapolis hotel to boost support for redistricting. “People have to realize that we only have a couple opportunities. We’ve got a net five to 10 seats. If we don’t get a net 10 pickup in the redistricting wars, it’s going to be enormously hard, if not impossible, to hold the House.”

Democrats need only net three House seats next year in order to seize control of Congress’ lower chamber, and their party already neutralized a five-seat advantage Texas Republicans gave themselves by similarly redrawing California’s congressional lines.

Chris LaCivita, Trump’s 2024 campaign manager and adviser to Fair Maps Indiana, a dark money group that blitzed the state with ads in recent weeks, threatened retribution to Senate Republicans who voted against the bill.

“You have a state full of MAGA Republicans run by Republican MAGA haters,” LaCivita said in a pre-vote interview, mentioning Bray, former Gov. Mitch Daniels and Vice President Mike Pence. “If you don’t defend a political movement from those that stand in the way — then it’s not a movement at all — a handful of politicians in Indiana will now know what standing in the way really means.”

Indiana officials whispered for weeks about fears that rejecting redistricting could result in a loss of federal funding—a fear that Heritage Action, the political arm of the Heritage Foundation, made explicit in an X post Thursday. “President Trump has made it clear to Indiana leaders: if the Indiana Senate fails to pass the map, all federal funding will be stripped from the state,” it read. “Roads will not be paved. Guard bases will close. Major projects will stop. These are the stakes and every NO vote will be to blame.”

Two senior White House officials told POLITICO that Trump’s team had not spoken with Heritage Action, and that Trump had not made such threats.

Following the vote, Bray sought told reporters the state was not in danger. “I’ve had lots of conversations with folks in Washington, D.C.,” he said, when asked about those threats. “Indiana will continue to function.”

The failed vote saves the seats of two sitting members, Democratic Reps. André Carson and Frank Mrvan, whose districts in deep blue Indianapolis and purplish Northwest Indiana had been carved up to become heavily Republican under the proposed map.

Informed by reporters about Indiana Senate Republicans rejecting Trump’s redistricting push, Speaker Mike Johnson said that’s “disappointing to me, adding, “but I’m very, very bullish on the midterms.”

Johnson reversed his stance on getting involved in redistricting by whipping votes with calls to Indiana lawmakers in recent days.

“I’ve got to deal with whatever matters are finally presented in each state, and we’re going to win. We’ve got a better record to run on.” Johnson predicted earlier this week the map would pass.

The monthlong debate about whether to redraw maps exposed deep fissures within the party between the MAGA base and the more traditionalist, pre-Trumpian wings of the party. It also gained more attention nationally in the wake of the death of Charlie Kirk, who threatened primaries for Hoosier Republican elected officials who opposed it in the final weeks of his life.

Turning Point Action, the organization founded by Kirk, has promised to work with other Trump-aligned super PACs to spend tens of millions of dollars to primary the resistant Republicans who voted no. But the group could only turn out a couple hundred protestors recently ahead of this week’s vote.

Several states closely watched Indiana for signs of where the redistricting arms race would turn next, but none more so than neighboring Illinois. The state’s Democratic governor, JB Pritzker, praised Indiana lawmakers with a statement Thursday that read, “Our neighbors in Indiana have stood up to Trump’s threats and political pressure, instead choosing to do what’s right for their constituents and our democracy. Illinois will remain vigilant against his map rigging — our efforts to respond and stop his campaign are being heard.”

Maryland members of Congress, speaking before Indiana’s vote, said their state was likely to press on regardless of Indiana’s outcome. State Senate President Bill Ferguson has opposed redistricting, but other state officials have vowed to push the issue, and the state’s congressional delegation has largely been supportive too.

“I’m for us doing redistricting,” said Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.). “No matter what.”

“That’s really up to the legislature and the governor, but I think that we cannot have one hand tied behind our back, and so all options are open in this,” said Rep. April McClain Delaney (D-Md.), who represents the swingiest Democratic controlled-district in the state.

Despite its Democratic governing trifecta, Illinois faces logistical barriers to redistricting and some resistance from the state’s delegation, including hesitation to break up minority communities in order to make red districts bluer.

“We’re watching to see what Indiana does. But you know, at best, being one district that would shift, I think a lot of people are wondering, is it worth doing all of that given the chaos,” said Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.).

Lawmakers in Maryland, in particular Senate President Bill Ferguson, a Democrat, were closely following developments in Indiana. Both Ferguson and Bray have been under pressure from top officials in their respective parties on redrawing their maps.

Ferguson has stymied Democrats efforts in the state and nationally, bucking Gov. Wes Moore, a potential 2028 presidential hopeful, who has been leading the charge for new maps in the state. Moore this week announced a special session for Dec. 16, though Ferguson on Thursday issued a statement reiterating that redistricting would not be taken up when state lawmakers convene in Annapolis next week.

On Friday, the Governor’s Redistricting Advisory Commission that Moore established last month, will hold its final public hearing with residents to solicit recommendations to the governor and the General Assembly on whether to move forward with redistricting. Commission members are expected to meet next week to discuss the potential contours of a new map based on public testimony and written statements, according to a legislative aide granted anonymity to discuss internal deliberations of the commission.

The GOP now turns to Florida, where Republicans stand to make significant gains that are complicated by tension between Gov. Ron DeSantis and House Republican leaders, as well some of the nation’s strictest anti-gerrymandeering standards.

DeSantis and the state Senate president want to delay action until later next year to await the outcome of a Louisiana gerrymandering case that’s before the U.S. Supreme Court. But House Speaker Daniel Perez is adamant that the Legislature take action during its upcoming session that starts in January.

Perez told POLITICO this week that he was “not being pushed by outside forces” to consider redistricting and that he had not talked to the White House directly or indirectly. Instead he said Florida should act because of a state Supreme Court ruling last summer that upheld the state’s current congressional map.

“We don’t have a map, we haven’t started to draw a map, but it doesn’t mean we can’t start to have the conversation,” Perez said.

Some Republicans contend Florida could flip three to five seats to the GOP with a new map, but Democrats contend any map put forward now would violate the state’s constitutional ban on drawing new districts for partisan gain.

Across the country, six states have new maps for the midterms. The biggest gains for both parties — five blue leaning seats in California and five red leaning seats Texas — are likely to cancel each other out.

In Ohio, a bipartisan commission agreed to a map that could net the GOP two new House seats, and North Carolina and Missouri drew one red leaning seat each. And in Utah, a court ruling has given Democrats a solid blue seat in Salt Lake City. There are still ongoing legal challenges in a handful of those states.

Taken together, Republicans are currently ahead by five seats. As the playing field continues to change, it remains unclear exactly which party will come out ahead before the midterms. Both parties expect the redraws to ultimately favor the GOP, but Democrats have so far avoided a worst-case scenario and expect to only be behind by a handful of seats.

The Indiana vote, though, marks a significant defeat for the White House political operation.

Trump and political adviser James Blair were whipping senators through the week.

The debate over whether to redistrict showed cleavages between MAGA and a more traditional GOP that could be exposed again in 2028, when Trump is constitutionally barred from seeking a third term.

“The sort of old school, deeply entrenched political forces in Indiana are Never Trumpers led by Mitch Daniels,” said a Republican familiar with the president’s thinking and granted anonymity to be candid about the vote. “It’s been kind of a brewing situation there.”

Daniels, who Trump derided on Truth Social as a “Failed Senate Candidate,” said the vote was an act of “principled courageous leadership.” Daniels, who was never a Senate candidate, decided not to run, but told POLITICO he “would have won.” He came out as an early opponent of redistricting, calling it “wrong.”

He said the vote demonstrated “a strong conviction in our state, and in our state, character, commitment to fair play and rejection of being bullied.”

Irie Sentner, Meredith Lee Hill, Nicholas Wu, Brakkton Booker, Shia Kapos and Gary Fineout contributed reporting.

​Politics

In a blow to national Democrats redistricting push, top Democrats in Maryland’s Legislature said Thursday redrawing the state’s congressional maps will not be on the agenda during a special legislative session set to begin next week.

Maryland Sen. President Bill Ferguson and House of Delegates Speaker Pro Tem Dana Stein instead said state lawmakers will focus on other state matters.

The announcement from Maryland state Democrats comes as President Donald Trump and Republicans are pushing for GOP-led states to redraw their maps to make them more favorable to the party ahead of the midterms. Ferguson and Stein issued their statement before Indiana Republicans rejected an effort Thursday afternoon to redraw maps in the Hoosier state.

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, a likely 2028 Democratic presidential hopeful, on Tuesday signed an executive order calling for a special session on Dec. 16, for the lower chamber to elect a new leader following the surprise resignation of Adrienne Jones from the post.

“The General Assembly may also consider other business to be resolved prior to the beginning of the 2026 legislative session,” he wrote, appearing to leave open the possibility the Maryland House could move forward on redistricting.

Both Moore and Jones support Maryland lawmakers redrawing the state’s federal congressional maps to gain an additional congressional seat in a push to counteract Trump’s effort.

Moore, along with other national Democrats including Democratic House leader Hakeem Jeffries, have for months pressured Ferguson to allow a vote on a measure that could deliver Democrats all eight of the state’s congressional seats. Ferguson, who has cited the possibility of the party losing congressional seats should new maps be challenged in court, has emerged as one of the biggest impediments to the pro-redistricting faction of his party.

Those close to Moore, however, suggest the push for redistricting is not dead.

On Friday, the Maryland governor’s Redistricting Advisory Commission will hold its final public hearing with residents to solicit recommendations to the governor and the General Assembly on whether to move forward with redistricting.

The commission members are expected to meet next week to discuss the potential contours of a new map based on public testimony and written statements, according to a legislative aide granted anonymity to discuss internal deliberations of the commission.

“The [commission] will continue its work and make a recommendation to the governor and state legislature on the need for new maps,” a second aide confirmed to POLITICO, also granted anonymity to speak freely about next steps in the state’s redistricting effort.

Moore and his allies could ultimately press the Maryland General Assembly to revisit redistricting when it returns for regular session in January, which would allow more time for negotiations with Ferguson.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) the Judiciary Committee ranking member, inserted himself in the state’s redistricting fight last month after he penned a  letter urging Maryland state lawmakers to continue fighting on the issue and to ostensibly buck Ferguson.

Raskin directly addressed Ferguson’s reluctance to move on redistricting in a podcast with The New Republic released Thursday.

“One of the reasons he invoked for it was that he said he had spoken to the Republican president of the Indiana Senate, who said he was going to stay out,” Raskin said. “Well, if he doesn’t stay out, that is going to redouble everybody’s determination to change Bill Ferguson’s mind.”

​Politics

Bill Gates on vaccine hesitancy, AI and global health | The Conversation

lead image

​Politics