ICE agents are now free to do sweeping stops around Los Angeles after the Supreme Court this week overruled a California district judge, prompting this reaction from LA Mayor Karen Bass. From the beginning, we have known that Los Angeles has been used as a test case for total dominance and unchecked power by the federal government. The rule of law used to mean something, not just to us, but to the Supreme Court.But now, with the stroke of a pen, the Supreme Court has undermined the rights of millions. I'm j ...

in the land. That's because after Trump faced a stinging week of push back from the lower courts on a number of his controversial policies, it's expected that he will take his grievances to the conservative majority Supreme Court in an effort to overturn those rulings. Already this week, Trump has asked the Supreme Court to step in and overturn a ruling that found his sweeping tariffs to be illegal.Since returning to the White House, Scotas has come to Trump's aid on a number of cases. We've talked about hi ...

A federal judge has ruled that President Trump's use of the National Guard in Los Angeles this summer was illegal. In his 52-page ruling, federal judge Charles Brier says that Trump violated a 19th century law barring the use of soldiers as cops. The judge then warned the efforts to send troops into other cities could amount to quote creating a national police force with the president as its chief.Joining us now, former federal prosecutor and former lawyer with the Department of Justice and the National Sec ...

We've been talking so much about the potential for National Guard troops or federal law enforcement to enter Chicago has been the next city that President Trump has highlighted here, Of course, there on the streets of Washington, D. C. He's suggested other cities like New York might get that treatment next.All of this, of course, began in Los Angeles a couple of months ago. And at the time, even when he was threatening Los Angeles, no one really took it that seriously. This was an unthinkable move in terms ...

In the meantime, many of the president's global tariffs are in doubt, as you might know, following that high-profile court ruling on Friday. Our Aean Jav has more on that this morning. Morning, Aean. >> Yeah, good morning, guys. We will see the president uh on camera today uh in an unrelated event this afternoon. So, we may hear from him directly on this court ruling that came down late on Friday. But his top trade adviser, Peter Navaro, said yesterday it'll be the end of the United States if President Trum ...

Legal & Regulatory Landscape - A federal appeals court ruled President Trump overstepped his authority imposing tariffs [1] - The court decision favors the argument that tariff decisions belong to Congress, not the President [2] - The administration has until October 14th to decide whether to appeal to the Supreme Court or go to Congress [18] - The Supreme Court previously ruled that Congress must affirmatively authorize rules, referencing the 1950 steel mill seizure case [7][8] Potential Business Impact - Businesses are in a difficult position, needing clarity on tariff rules for long-term planning [13][15] - Some businesses are considering manufacturing in the US due to the tariffs, while others are waiting for the situation to resolve [13][14] - The legality of tariffs collected is questioned, with potential for refund actions if the ruling stands [10][11] Presidential Powers & Limitations - The President has limited power to impose a 15% temporary tariff for 150 days under Section 122 of the Trade Act [17] - The tariffs imposed exceeded the President's power by being up to 50% or even 150% and indefinite [17]

A federal appeals court ruled that President Trump overstepped his authority when he used emergency powers to launch sweeping tariffs in April. Now, as you heard, White House trade adviser Peter Navaro says they're ready to take the case all the way to the Supreme Court. On Friday, the panel ruled that the power to impose tariffs lies lies in fact with Congress.The appeals court did, not the president. Joining us now, MSNBC White House correspondent Aaya Gardner and CNBC senior analyst and commentator and p ...

A federal appeals court ruled most of Trump's global tariffs are in fact illegal, striking a massive blow to his trade policy, if you want to call it that. Trump reacting in typical Trump fashion, writing on his truth social site in part, quote, "Today, a highly partisan appeals court incorrectly said that our tariffs should be removed, but they know the United States of America will win in the end. Now, with the help of the United States Supreme Court, we will use them to the benefit of our nation. Joining ...

Central Bank Independence & Political Influence - The core issue revolves around whether the Federal Reserve (Fed), a fundamental institution for American economic strength, should remain free from political influence [7] - Concerns exist that politicized central banks could negatively impact economies globally, a responsibility the Supreme Court may not want to bear [6] - The current situation is viewed as a potentially damaging conversation regarding the independence of the central bank [7] Lisa Cook Case & Supreme Court Involvement - The case involving Lisa Cook is expected to reach the Supreme Court, with a previous case, Trump versus Wilcox, offering insights into the court's potential stance [1] - The Supreme Court appears uncomfortable with a politicized Fed, but its precedents regarding specialized economic agencies and presidential firings are being questioned [1][2] - The Supreme Court will decide whether to prevent the president from exerting full control over the Fed or to endorse a unified executive with the power to define "cause" for dismissal [2] - The administration is allegedly hoping the Supreme Court will back down from previous warnings against firing Fed governors [9] Presidential Power & Agency Control - The president seeks the ability to fire Fed governors without cause, a power the Supreme Court grants for most other agencies [5] - The administration believes in consolidating power and responsibility with the president, aiming for complete control over independent agencies [10] - The legality of firing a Federal Reserve governor is questioned, with arguments suggesting the Supreme Court has previously restricted presidential power in this area [8] Timeline & Economic Uncertainty - The Supreme Court is expected to act swiftly due to the potential for economic uncertainty [11][12] - A resolution is anticipated within weeks, but no more than a couple of months [12]

National Guard Deployment & Legal Basis - The deployment of the National Guard is being framed as addressing lawlessness, referencing the historical concept of "Posse Comitatus" [1] - The President's authority to deploy the National Guard, especially in Democratic-controlled cities, is questioned as potentially a political move rather than a necessity to fight crime [2][4] - The use of federal Title 32 orders for National Guard deployment in Washington D C raises concerns about the appropriateness of using armed troops not trained in police work in civilian settings [5][6][7] - Governors are pushing back against the deployment of troops in their states, raising potential legal challenges and invoking historical parallels to the Civil War [9][10][11] - The use of the National Guard is contrasted with historical examples like the Civil Rights Movement, where there was a clear federal interest in enforcing constitutional rights [13] Federal Reserve Independence - The President's attempt to influence or remove a Federal Reserve governor is seen as a challenge to the Fed's independence and a potential overreach of executive power [15][16][17] - The Federal Reserve was created as an independent agency to insulate monetary policy from political pressures that could harm the economy [18][19][20] - The debate over the President's power over the Federal Reserve raises constitutional questions about the balance of power and the role of independent agencies [20][21][24] - The Supreme Court's stance on the independence of the Federal Reserve is being scrutinized, particularly in light of past rulings on other independent boards [25][26][27] - Maintaining an independent central bank is considered crucial for the stability of the US economy and the attractiveness of the US dollar as a global investment [28] Criminal Justice & Law Enforcement - The President's suggestion of the death penalty for murderers in Washington D C is met with skepticism regarding its effectiveness as a deterrent and its potential application to other cases [29][30][31] - The presence of federal agencies like ICE and DEA at checkpoints in Washington D C raises questions about priorities and resource allocation, especially given crises in other areas like the Arizona-Mexico border [32][36] - Individuals have constitutional rights when encountering law enforcement checkpoints, including the right to remain silent, but asserting those rights may have consequences [33][34][35]