The Enlightenment

Image courtesy of Sora Shimazaki/Pexels

Welcome to The Judiciary at Noon. Take a break from work to get an update on the oft-neglected third branch of the United States government, the judicial branch.

The series covers any updates to the federal judiciary, including any new judges confirmed, any deaths, resignations, or retirements from the courts, and any new vacancies that have occurred. It includes political analysis at the very end. Posts usually cover the previous week; this post covers the last two weeks.

Confirmations

No judges were confirmed for the two weeks spanning February 14 to February 27, 2025.

Vacancies

• Feb. 15, 2025: Judge Wilma Antoinette Lewis of the District of the Virgin Islands assumed senior status, opening up a vacancy on the court.

54 vacancies remain on the federal judiciary, a number unchanged from two weeks ago.

Retirements, Deaths, and Resignations

• Feb. 18, 2025: Senior Judge Alfred Vincent Covello of the District of Connecticut died at the age of 92. He had been an H. W. Bush appointee.
• Feb. 22, 2025: Senior Judge Bruce Marshall Selya of the First Circuit Court of Appeals died at the age of 90. He had been a Reagan appointee.

Analysis

Hello everyone. I apologize for the delay in the 62nd installment of The Judiciary at Noon. I had a busy few weeks and so I had to focus on my personal work. This installment covers the previous two weeks to catch up.

There really has not been much activity in the federal judiciary the last two weeks. I suspect that will change in the next two months. Biden, Obama, and Trump in his first term all made their first judicial nominations by May 1st of their first year in office.

Speaking of judicial nominations, this is not a political blog, but it appears we are heading towards a constitutional crisis. I don’t throw that term around loosely. However, President Trump’s threats to defy court orders and attempts to impact funding allocated by Congress violates the concept of an independent judiciary and Article I of the Constitution.

Judges are there, in theory, to be a neutral guardrail. Judicial politics notwithstanding, judges check the decisions of politicians, including the President, to make sure they are in line with the Constitution and the law.

However, none of this is an act of God. Politicians voluntarily agree to submit themselves to judicial rulings. However, there have countless times when courts will issue rulings and the President does not obey.

News has emerged that I find very troubling. Since my last post, there have been a plethora of new lawsuits across the country. Judges have routinely paused Trump administration rulings, or delayed their implementation until a new trial can be heard.

But so far, we have only heard from district judges. I had been waiting to see what the Supreme Court has to say on the matter of Trump’s executive orders. Now, last week, the Supreme Court has finally weighed in on some of these matters, and I find it very troubling.

One of the last judges appointed by President Biden, Judge Amir Ali of the District of Columbia District Court, issued an order on February 13th that the Trump administration had until 11:59 PM on last Wednesday, February 26th to resume U.S. foreign aid payments. The deadline had already been extended once, but Judge Ali found no evidence that the Trump administration was complying.

The Appeals Court, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, denied the Trump administration’s appeal to extend the deadline again. However, on appeal to the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts granted the Trump administration’s request, and halted the order to resume aid.

This is worrying to see. I had said a month ago that I believe we can rely on the Supreme Court to prevent Trump’s ban on birthright citizenship. Judging by this decision, I am not so certain.

In the United States, we have a legal theory known as nondelegation. Basically, essential constitutional powers of the President, Congress, etc. cannot be handed over to other branches of government even if the branch of government handing over the power wants to.

In addition, we also have Article I, which outlines how money is spent. It states:

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

Appropriations of “law”, meaning the Congress, which makes the laws, decides how money is spent. The reverse also holds: no other branch of government, especially the President, may halt funds assigned by Congress simply because they want to. There is another part of the Constitution, Article II, Section 3, that states:

…he [the President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…

Meaning the President cannot simply stop the flow of funds Congress has authorized. However, even if there was no constitutional basis, the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 forbids the President from stopping the appropriation of funds without Congress’ approval.

But what happens if Congress does not want to enforce its power? Republican Speaker of the House is more than happy with the seizure of Congress’ spending power by Trump.

And what happens if the courts, who are supposed to make sure Congress gets off its butt in such a situation, also does not wish to enforce separation of powers between Congress and the President, as appears to be happening with this Supreme Court ruling?

Then there is no institutional guardrail left on President Trump’s power.

SIGN-OFF

That’s it for this week’s The Judiciary at Noon. This has been Anthony Myrlados.