Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
The neglected constitutional argument that could blunt Trump's vendettas
Yeah, I know, WaPo, but my subscription is still active and this opinion piece brings up a facet lawyers and courts seem to be forgetting in regards to Trumps 'retribution' actions. This is a tool that should be used against all the damage he is doing just because someone pissed him off. A good starting place would be his decision that parents in Maine MUST bring newborns to an SSA office in order to get them SS #s. Newborns and young infants are not vaccinated and thus this requirement puts them at risk of serious illness, all because the governor and some people of Maine won't kowtow to Trump's ego.
https://wapo.st/4iehZxP]
"That prohibition on arbitrary governmental action, and in particular government actions motivated by spite or ill will, applies not just to states but also to the federal government. And it throws into grave constitutional doubt many of the Trump administration’s targeting decisions.
"In many of those cases, I suspect that the new administration’s actions could be successfully shown to rest on no more than caprice or ill will. Of course, federal lawyers will gin up reasons to shield what in fact are arbitrary decisions. Rare are instances in which an official so candidly admits that he endangered newborn infants because he was “ticked” about a governor’s manners. The government may persuade the court that some of its actions have some rational basis, which is the relevant test. Trump’s tariffs, for example, may well be economically irrational, but they are unlikely to be struck down on that ground simply because judges aren’t comfortable second-guessing equations. But, in many other cases, based on the abundant evidence of these past 11 weeks, I suspect the government’s proffered reasons can convincingly be shown to be a sham.
"Yet the lawyers driving the anti-Trump litigation seem to have missed this equal protection claim. Why? It could be that many were brought up in the left-liberal traditions of the ACLU and the NAACP, while challenges to the arbitrariness of administrative action have long been a staple of the libertarian right. And decisions such as Olech, challenging local property assessments, are seldom discussed in such circles because they advance property owners’ interests rather than those of vulnerable minorities. Cases such as Olech are oddities, not canon."
"In many of those cases, I suspect that the new administration’s actions could be successfully shown to rest on no more than caprice or ill will. Of course, federal lawyers will gin up reasons to shield what in fact are arbitrary decisions. Rare are instances in which an official so candidly admits that he endangered newborn infants because he was “ticked” about a governor’s manners. The government may persuade the court that some of its actions have some rational basis, which is the relevant test. Trump’s tariffs, for example, may well be economically irrational, but they are unlikely to be struck down on that ground simply because judges aren’t comfortable second-guessing equations. But, in many other cases, based on the abundant evidence of these past 11 weeks, I suspect the government’s proffered reasons can convincingly be shown to be a sham.
"Yet the lawyers driving the anti-Trump litigation seem to have missed this equal protection claim. Why? It could be that many were brought up in the left-liberal traditions of the ACLU and the NAACP, while challenges to the arbitrariness of administrative action have long been a staple of the libertarian right. And decisions such as Olech, challenging local property assessments, are seldom discussed in such circles because they advance property owners’ interests rather than those of vulnerable minorities. Cases such as Olech are oddities, not canon."