Connect with us

CORRUPTION

Josh Hawley Says ‘Only’ SCOTUS ‘Issues Rules for Whole Country’, Despite Constitution

Published

on

Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) vowed to file legislation stopping federal district judges from ruling on orders issued by President Donald Trump. He claims it’s outside of their jurisdiction—but the Constitution disagrees.

On Wednesday, Hawley appeared on The Charlie Kirk Show to slam district judges who have issued injunctions against the Trump administration’s acts, including the mass firings of federal workers and the rollback of DEI initiatives.

“These are district courts, local federal courts, that are saying, ‘I’m not just going to issue an order that says what the executive branch can or cannot do in my district, I’m going to issue an order that binds the executive branch for the entire nation,'” Hawley said.

READ MORE: Conservative Rains Hell on ‘Dishonest’ and ‘Scummy’ Josh Hawley

“That is not a power that I think district courts have… what needs to happen is one of two things: Either the Supreme Court needs to intervene and make clear there’s only one court that can issue rules for the whole country, that’s the Supreme Court, that’s why we only have one of them. And or, if they won’t do that, Congress needs to legislate and make clear that district courts do not have the ability to issue these kinds of injunctions.”

On Thursday, Hawley vowed on X (formerly Twitter) to file legislation that would strip power from district court judges, keeping them from issuing these sorts of injunctions.

“District Court judges have issued RECORD numbers of national injunctions against the Trump administration – a dramatic abuse of judicial authority. I will introduce legislation to stop this abuse for good,” he wrote, declining to include any details on what that legislation may look like.

Article III of the U.S. Constitution lays out the American judicial system. While the Supreme Court is the final authority, it is primarily an appellate court—meaning that lower courts make initial rulings which are then appealed up the chain. The Supreme Court can only be the original court in cases involving “Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party,” the Constitution reads.

District Courts are the lowest level of federal courts, and there are 94 of them throughout the U.S., with each state getting at least one, as well as the District of Columbia. Much like the state courts, district courts hear criminal cases—when federal crimes have been committed—as well as civil cases. Civil cases deal with legal and constitutional conflicts; the type of cases Hawley is referring to here.

As an example, let’s look at the recent case involving Trump’s attempt to ban transgender people from serving in the military. In a case like this, the judge can issue an injunction, which puts Trump’s order on hold, until it can be heard by the courts.

It all starts with a lawsuit—in this case, Talbott v. Trump. Talbott was initially filed by six active service members and another two people who wanted to enlist. The plaintiffs said that Trump’s executive order would keep them out of the military illegally; the defendant, the Department of Justice, disagrees, saying the order is legal.

Whether or not to issue an injunction is up to the particular judge. If the judge declines to issue an injunction, the government could continue to act on Trump’s EO. In this particular case, U.S. District Court Judge Ana Reyes put an initial injunction on the order earlier this week. This keeps everything in a holding pattern; transgender people can remain in the military until the case is decided.

Given Reyes’ comments, it’s likely that she will rule that the EO is illegal. If the Justice Department chooses not to appeal the ruling, it will stand just as if the Supreme Court ruled on it. Of course, this is unlikely—the DOJ will almost certainly appeal. The case then heads to one of the 13 appellate courts.

Appellate courts review the original ruling. Often, both sides are given a brief time to argue their case—usually 15 minutes, according to the official U.S. Courts webpage—but not always. Sometimes, appellate courts look only at the written briefs in the case. Unlike district courts, appellate courts are ruled over by a panel of judges rather than just one.

The judicial panel will decide whether or not the original judge made an error in legal reasoning. The appellate court can decide whether to let the decision stand, to overturn it, or to send the case back to the district courts.

In this case, if Reyes rules in favor of the plaintiffs, and the appellate court upholds her ruling, the injunction keeping trans people in the military still stands. If the appellate court overturns the ruling, the injunction may still stand, if the plaintiffs decide to appeal. If the plaintiffs don’t choose to appeal, then the injunction would be lifted and Trump’s EO would be reinstated.

Either party can file a “writ of certiorari”, which asks that the Supreme Court to decide the case. So, in Talbott, it’s likely that either way the appellate court rules, either the DOJ or the plaintiffs would ask the Supreme Court to weigh in. The injunction would still stand until the Supreme Court either declines to take the case, or ultimately rules on it. At that point, whatever the Supreme Court decides would stand.

Image via Shutterstock

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

CORRUPTION

‘My Friends Will Get Hurt’: MTG Says Trump Told Her Why He Doesn’t Want to Reveal Epstein Conspirators’ Names

Published

4 months ago

on

December 29, 2025

By

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) said that President Donald Trump was reticent to reveal the identities of any of the men accused of abusing children in the Epstein files was because “My friends will get hurt.”

Greene made the allegation in a new interview with The New York Times published Monday morning. She said that Trump told her the reason while on a call after a press conference where Greene said she may expose the names of some of those listed in the files related to disgraced financier and convicted sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein.

Trump had called Greene in her office, and a staff member told the Times that the entire office could hear the president shouting at Greene over a speakerphone. The article alleges that she was confused why Trump was so upset, and her question led to the remark.

READ MORE: DOJ Issues ‘Bizarre’ Disclaimer Defending Trump in Latest Epstein Files Dump

Greene also alleges that she asked Trump to invite some of Epstein’s victims to the White House, but he balked at the suggestion. Trump reportedly told her that the women abused by Epstein hadn’t done anything to warrant a White House invitation. Greene says this is the last time she talked with the president.

She says the outburst blindsided her as previously she had believed Trump’s assertions that he was not in the Epstein files.

“The story to me was that I’d seen pictures of Epstein with all these people. And Trump is just one of several. And then, for me, I’d seen that Bill Clinton is on the flight logs for his plane like 20-something times. So, for people like me, it wasn’t suspicious. And then we’d heard the general stories of how Epstein used to be a member of Mar-a-Lago, but Trump kicked him out. Why would I think he’s done anything wrong, right?” Greene told the Times about her beliefs prior to the phone call.

Though Greene was formerly a staunch ally of Trump, her interest in the Epstein files caused Trump to turn on her. She joined with Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Ro Khanna (D-CA) to force a House vote compelling the Department of Justice to release all of its files on the Epstein case, with the only redactions to protect victims’ names.

The bill ultimately passed both House and Senate and was signed by Trump, giving the DOJ a December 19 deadline to release the information, But when the date rolled around, only a portion of the files were released. What was available was heavily redacted, with names of co-conspirators and others blacked out.

Shortly after Trump called her a “traitor” on his Truth Social platform over her calls to release the Epstein files, Greene announced that she would be resigning from the House January 5, midway through her term.

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

CORRUPTION

ICE Agents Appear To Detain Man on Christmas Eve, Steal His Groceries: Video

Published

4 months ago

on

December 26, 2025

By

ice agents appear to rob from detained man

A new video appears to show ICE agents detain a man in a Walmart parking lot, and then steal his groceries on Christmas Eve.

The video, originally posted to TikTok by the anti-ICE organization People Over Papers on Christmas Day went viral across platforms. The account @LongTimeHistory shared the clip on X, where it received over 1.5 million views.

The incident took place at a Walmart parking lot in Yakima, Washington, about two hours away from Seattle. In the video, ICE agents appear to arrest and detain a man. The woman recording the video asks the man repeatedly for his name and phone number so she can let his family know what’s happened. He identifies himself as Emilio Moreno before he’s put in an unmarked ICE vehicle.

READ MORE: Sotomayor Slams SCOTUS Over Ruling ‘Declaring All Latinos Fair Game to Be Seized’ by ICE

The woman then asks one of the ICE agents for the man’s number. He refuses the request, telling her Moreno will be allowed to call his family from the facility.

“No, you don’t. You didn’t let my husband call. He’s in f*ckin’ Mexico right now,” she replies.

The agent then accuses her husband of fighting back—which she says he wasn’t. She asks the agent if he was the one who arrested her husband, and he confirms he is. While this conversation is going on, other ICE agents can be seen removing things from Moreno’s shopping cart; though it is unclear where the agents are placing the purchased food, @LongTimeHistory alleges they took the groceries for themselves.

The video was shot by volunteers documenting ICE activity in parking lots for Walmart and WinCo stores, according to the Yakima Herald. One of the activists, Ezequiel Morfin Jr., a board member of the activist organization Latino Votes, said that he was nearly run over in the Walmart parking lot.

“Our main goal today was that someone does not have to get picked up and separated from their families on Christmas Eve,” Morfin told the Herald.

“Are these guys Christians? Do they believe in God, or are they Christian Nationalists?” Morfin added. “Couldn’t they just pause for a day or two?”

Continue Reading

CORRUPTION

Despite Jeffrey Epstein ‘Hoax’ Comments, Speaker Claims Trump ‘Wants Everything To Come Out’

Published

8 months ago

on

September 8, 2025

By

In an attempt to walk back his previous claim that President Donald Trump had been an FBI informant in the case against sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.) said that Trump wants to see all the files released. This runs counter to many statements from Trump calling the files’ release “foolish” and that the files themselves are a “hoax.”

On Friday, video of Johnson telling CNN’s Manu Raju that Trump had been an FBI informant in the Epstein case went viral. Over the weekend, Johnson’s office released a statement clarifying that he meant Trump “was the only one more than a decade ago willing to help prosecutors expose Epstein for being a disgusting child predator.”

In a new video, Raju asks Johnson again about the claim. Though Johnson said he didn’t know if he “used the right terminology,” the fact that Trump was willing to assist prosecutors and had previously ejected Epstein from Mar-a-Lago was “common knowledge.” Raju asked if Trump had been “asked to wear a wire,” but Johnson said he had no knowledge of that, only that Trump “was helpful in trying to get Epstein for law enforcement.”

READ MORE: Trump Launches Bizarre Epstein Files ‘Scam’ Rant When Asked About Russiagate

“The President and I have talked about the Epstein evils many times. He’s disgusted by it as everybody else. He has long had a history of acknowledging that, and he has said repeatedly he wants everything to come out, all credible information, everything for the American public to decide,” Johnson added.

Despite Johnson’s statement, Trump has had varied reactions to the Epstein files. While many in his orbit said his administration would release the Epstein files in full during his 2024 campaign, Trump himself was less keen on the idea, according to Time. While Trump suggested he may release the files, he also warned of inaccuracies in the data.

In a June 2, 2004 appearance on Fox & Friends, Trump said, “I guess I would [declassify the Epstein files. I think that less so, because you don’t know—you don’t want to  affect people’s lives if there’s phony stuff in there, because there’s a lot of phony stuff in that whole world. But I think I would.”  A few months later, Trump told Lex Fridman that he’d “certainly take a look” at releasing the client list.

On the other hand, Vice President JD Vance, during the campaign told comedian and podcaster Theo Von, “Seriously, we need to release the Epstein list. That is an important thing.” FBI Director Kash Patel also repeatedly called for “ALL of it to be released” during the campaign. Former advisor Elon Musk called for Trump to beat former Vice President Kamala Harris, because if he won “that Epstein client list is going to become public. And some of those billionaires behind Kamala are terrified of that outcome.”

Trump’s own son also demanded the release of the client list during the campaign.

“Everyone knows Bill Clinton was on Jeffrey Epstein’s plane and island a lot. Literally no one is at all surprised that he’s all over the release. What we want to know is ALL THE OTHER NAMES that the government has been hiding & running cover for. That will actually be revealing!” Donald Trump Jr. wrote on X (formerly Twitter) in January 2024.

But after Trump’s election, his administration released a portion of the Epstein files—though most of the files released had already been publicly available. Trump had also dismissed calls from fellow Republicans to release the rest of the files.

“Their new SCAM is what we will forever call the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax, and my PAST supporters have bought into this ‘bullsh*t,’ hook, line, and sinker,” he wrote on Truth Social this July.

Around the same time, he called Republicans still interested in the Epstein files “former supporters” who had been “duped by the Democrats.”

On Monday, Politico reported that the House Oversight Committee had received additional files from the Epstein estate. The committee is led by James Comer (R-Ky.). It is yet unclear what from these latest files will be released publicly and when.

Comer’s fellow Kentucky Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie, has been behind a push to compel the Department of Justice to release all information on Epstein publicly. Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Ca.) say they have the votes to force the DOJ to release the information.

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.