A legal expert is sounding the alarm on a Trump move that seeks the Supreme Court's help with a "nasty" power grab.During an episode of Talking Feds, former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman warned that the Trump administration is seeking to take away states' control of upcoming elections after filing an emergency application with the Supreme Court through the Solicitor General."It's their first effort to get the Supreme Court to weigh in on one of Trump's really pernicious ham-handed efforts to just wrest control of the voting process from states," Litman said. "It's about as nasty as it goes."Trump's Solicitor General filed an emergency Supreme Court application asking the court to vacate a lower-court injunction on an executive order restricting mail-in voting. The executive order would take effect before the November 3 midterms, according to Litman."This would be really cataclysmic for the election," Litman said. "The executive order itself was from a few months ago, and it gives the executive branch an unprecedented — and I think, in the reading of all courts so far — unconstitutional role in the elections."Litman added that Trump is doing it "in a way that would really disenfranchise millions of people, and disproportionately by a large margin, Democrats." He also pointed out that the emergency application is reaching the Supreme Court via the "shadow docket."Until now, the Trump administration "shied away" from appealing its voting losses, "so this is the first one, and surprise, surprise, it's by emergency docket...so now, really unfortunately, this goes boom into the court by the so-called shadow docket."The Supreme Court issued a briefing order after getting the emergency application that gives the states and other challengers until August 3 to file a response, Litman noted.
American diplomats walked out of a United Nations meeting after they were confronted with harsh criticism about President Donald Trump, The Guardian reported.During a U.N. Security Council meeting on the Ukraine-Russia war, United States diplomats staged a walkout after months of foreign diplomats and U.N. officials blasting Trump's human rights record, according to reporting by The Guardian.The condemnation came after the Trump administration imposed sweeping tariffs on dozens of countries it alleged were using "forced labor," The Guardian reported, noting that U.S. lawmakers also took issue with the tariffs. Critics dismissed the allegations as a "convenient" justification for Trump's tariffs, The Guardian added.The Trump administration has also come under fire for criticizing the U.N. human rights system and opposing the reappointment of U.N. human rights chief Volker Türk, according to The Guardian.Türk said in March that he was "deeply worried by the fundamental shift in direction" in the US. In June, Türk called for "prompt, independent, impartial and effective investigations" into immigration custody during the Trump administration.The U.S. was one of ten countries that voted against Türk's reappointment last week. The U.S. voted against Türk's reappointment alongside Russia, North Korea, Nicaragua, Israel, and Mali, which led French diplomats to call it out via a social media post, per The Guardian."The U.S. used to be a beacon of human rights. Not anymore," French diplomats wrote in a post on X. "Today, it stands alongside North Korea, Nicaragua, Mali & Russia, isolated. And the world no longer listens to it."
In President Donald Trump’s ongoing campaign to rig the 2026 midterm elections, he has done everything from target Republicans who refuse to go along with him to delivering a controversial speech claiming to have proof of election fraud that was widely derided by both sides.Now a Georgia official who Trump targeted for political destruction has written an editorial for a prominent state publication denouncing the president’s claims — while carefully avoiding mentioning him directly.“In an era when confidence in elections is too often shaped by partisan rhetoric rather than proven results, Georgia has taken a different approach: Build the nation’s gold standard for election administration and prove its success at every election,” Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger wrote for the Atlanta Journal Constitution on Tuesday. “The recently completed statewide primary and runoff are the latest examples. Millions of Georgians cast their ballots, votes were reported promptly, post-election audits confirmed the results and election officials across all 159 counties once again demonstrated that elections can be secure, accessible, transparent and efficient at the same time.”He added, “While other states continue debating how elections should work or struggle to produce timely results, Georgia continues proving how they can work.”After reviewing in detail how Georgia has done its best to ensure voter integrity before every election, Raffensperger argued that Georgians overwhelmingly support his efforts.“That success is also reflected in public opinion,” Raffensperger said. “A recent Atlanta Journal-Constitution/University of Georgia poll found that 70 [percent] of likely Democratic primary voters and 77 [percent] of likely Republican primary voters said they were very or somewhat confident that Georgia’s primary election would be conducted fairly and accurately.”In addition to praising his past achievements, Raffensperger argued that the state is ready for future elections.“Our rigorous preparation for November is already underway,” Raffensperger argued. “Voting equipment is being tested, poll workers are receiving additional training, cybersecurity protections continue to be strengthened, voter rolls are being maintained in accordance with state and federal law, and state and local officials are coordinating to protect election infrastructure. Mandatory post-election audits, public observation opportunities, and Georgia’s Election Data Hub will once again ensure transparency throughout the election process.”He ultimately concluded, “Confidence in the system can’t be dictated from above. It is earned through transparency, accountability and results. That’s the standard Georgia has set, and that’s the standard we will continue to uphold.”Raffensperger famously refused to help Trump “find 11,780 votes” to reverse Georgia’s result during the 2020 presidential election from supporting Trump to Democratic candidate Joe Biden. Trump retaliated by opposing Raffensperger when he ran for reelection as Secretary of State in 2022, although Raffensperger ultimately won his primary and general election despite Trump’s efforts. In 2026, Raffensperger sought the Republican nomination for governor but lost to billionaire Rick Jackson.
President Donald Trump is asking the Supreme Court to overturn his defamation loss to E. Jean Carroll, per reports.According to Axios and the New York Times, Trump's lawyers are asking the Supreme Court to overturn the $83.3 million loss to Carroll, the columnist who accused him of sexual assault.Trump has denied Carroll's claim that he sexually assaulted her in the 1990s, but he lost Carroll's defamation suit and an appeal in federal court. Now, his lawyers are arguing he's entitled to presidential immunity because he was president when he made defamatory comments against Carroll, per reporting by Axios."This is the first case in our nation's history in which a court has imposed damages liability on a president for his conduct in office," Trump's lawyers said in a court filing, according to reporting by the Times. Trump's lawyers are arguing that the question of the president's immunity is "straightforward on the undisputed factual record," an argument an appeals court rejected, per the Times.Trump's lawyers are also arguing that if the ruling stands, it will constitutionally weaken the power of future presidents by exposing them to liability for their statements made while in office, per Axios.Axios noted that this marks the second time in two months that the Supreme Court is dealing with Carroll-related litigation. In June, the Supreme Court declined to hear Trump's appeal of a $5 million verdict separate from the $83.3 million loss. Trump's team has also asked the Supreme Court to reconsider that judgment, Axios reported.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency under President Donald Trump is preparing to engage in counterterrorism work, warned a political analyst.According to Ken Klippenstein, FEMA, primarily known for disaster preparation and aid, "is shelling out grant money to state and local authorities to build up capacity to carry out pre-crime operations against 'organized political violence,'" per a recent agency bulletin.It's part of Trump's executive order to attempt to stop crimes before they take place, a concept popularized to a dystopian extreme in the 2002 science fiction film Minority Report.The "pre-crime" operations, according to the bulletin, will include urging states to pay for "training to spot 'social media-based indicators,' analysts to monitor “'online behaviors and digital footprints,' and teams for 'managing persons of concern whose behavior indicates a potential trajectory toward domestic terrorism,'" Klippenstein's report indicated.In particular, said Klippenstein, the bulletin stresses "indicators" which "are something a person said or did that an officer has been trained to read as a sign of a crime that hasn't happened and may never happen." This is essentially "vibes-based law enforcement," he argued, "with the imprimatur of national security respectability" — and a grave threat to civil liberties.FEMA under the Trump administration has been plagued with troubles. A procurement rule enacted by former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem delayed disaster responses in several emergencies, including the tragic floods in Central Texas. Additionally, the third-in-command at the agency had to be let go after he started ranting that God had teleported him to a Waffle House.
President Donald Trump’s administration has found a new way to gut due process and fast-track deportation for asylum applicants. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, or USCIS, the agency that manages visas, green cards, naturalizations, and other aspects of the legal immigration process, published a new regulation Monday allowing officers to refer hundreds of thousands of asylum applicants directly to deportation proceedings without interviewing them.The rule would scrap USCIS’s long-standing practice of offering interviews to asylum applicants already in the United States. The agency claimed that it had previously offered interviews despite there being “no statutory right to an interview or requirement to conduct one.” The rule would also remove references in Department of Homeland Security materials to a “right” to an interview and language asserting that asylum officers would review cases “in an interview.” “This means many people will never get a chance to argue their case,” Aaron Reichlin-Melchick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, wrote on X Monday. In order to receive asylum, applicants must demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution in their home country.The filing states that the new rule will “more quickly place certain aliens into removal proceedings” with immigration judges at the Executive Office of Immigration Review, or EOIR. Once asylum applicants are passed to the EOIR, the cases that are deemed “legally deficient” may be pretermitted, meaning those applicants can be deported without a hearing. No interview and no hearing? That sounds like a clear violation of due process—which the Trump administration has been angling to obliterate for more than a year.In addition, the new rule would allow asylum officers to “determine that the alien does not merit a grant [of asylum] as a matter of discretion without first making an eligibility determination,” and would also stop requiring a letter communicating that the basis for referral of asylum should include an assessment of the applicant’s credibility. The rule was published Monday, to be implemented Tuesday without prior warning or public comment period—and will likely invite a slew of legal challenges under the Administrative Procedures Act.
