『A Judge Blocks Trump From Using Counterterrorism Grants as Election Leverage, Alito Recuses From a Big Climate Case & Florida Asks a Court to Freeze OpenAI's Model Development』のカバーアート

A Judge Blocks Trump From Using Counterterrorism Grants as Election Leverage, Alito Recuses From a Big Climate Case & Florida Asks a Court to Freeze OpenAI's Model Development

A Judge Blocks Trump From Using Counterterrorism Grants as Election Leverage, Alito Recuses From a Big Climate Case & Florida Asks a Court to Freeze OpenAI's Model Development

無料で聴く

ポッドキャストの詳細を見る

【Amazonプライム会員限定】今ならプレミアムプランが4か月 月額99円。

10月19日まで。※適用条件あり
This Day in Legal History: Congress Creates the U.S. ArmyOn September 29, 1789—the very last day of the First Congress’s inaugural session—the House and Senate passed the act that formally established the United States Army under the new Constitution. President Washington had pressed hard for it, reminding Congress that the militia provisions inherited from the Articles of Confederation were inadequate and that the nation needed a standing military establishment placed on a proper constitutional footing.The legal significance lies less in the creation of a fighting force than in how that force was subordinated. The Constitution had already divided military power deliberately: Congress alone can raise and fund armies and declare war, while the President serves as Commander-in-Chief. The 1789 Act operationalized that division, embedding the bedrock American principle of civilian control of the military—that the armed forces answer to elected civilian authority and operate within, not above, the rule of law. The Framers were deeply wary of standing armies and concentrated power; their answer was not to forbid a military, but to fracture control over it between the branches so no single actor could wield it unchecked.The significance of September 29, 1789 is that principle—power channeled through congressional authorization and constitutional limits rather than executive will alone. And that is precisely the thread running through our lead story today: a dispute over whether the executive branch can wield federal money as a lever to force its policy preferences on the states, or whether it may only do what Congress has actually authorized. The names change over 237 years; the fundamental question—who gets to exercise power, and with whose permission—does not.A federal judge has blocked the administration from tying federal counterterrorism grants to whether states adopt its preferred election-administration changes—the latest in a long string of election-related defeats we’ve tracked this month. Here’s what the administration did: the Department of Homeland Security announced it would withhold 20% of funding under grant programs meant to help state and local governments prepare for terrorist attacks and other threats, unless those governments adopted election measures the administration favored. U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, in a 24-page opinion, sided with counties and cities in Texas, Ohio, and Tennessee that sued, holding that federal agencies simply lacked authority from Congress to attach those conditions to the grants. Let me put this in its constitutional frame, because it’s a classic. The federal government routinely attaches strings to the money it gives states—that’s the spending power, and it’s legitimate within limits. But the Supreme Court set boundaries in cases like South Dakota v. Dole and, more forcefully, in the NFIB v. Sebelius healthcare decision: conditions must be clearly stated, must relate to the purpose of the funding, and can’t be so coercive that they amount to a “gun to the head.” Conditioning anti-terrorism preparedness money on unrelated election changes runs into two of those problems at once—the germaneness requirement, since election administration has nothing to do with counterterrorism, and the basic separation-of-powers point that an agency can’t invent conditions Congress never authorized. That last point is what Judge Ali hung his ruling on, and it’s the same principle that decided the homelessness and mail-ballot cases: agencies have only the power Congress gives them. The significance is that this is now a consistent, rulings-deep pattern—court after court telling the executive it cannot use funding leverage, or agency fiat, to seize control over how states run their elections. On the anniversary of a law about channeling power through congressional authorization, it’s a fitting rebuke.Judge blocks Trump from tying anti-terrorism grants to election changes | Reuters · PBS News · US NewsIn a notable reversal, Justice Samuel Alito has recused himself from a major climate-change case the Supreme Court is set to hear next week—and the move opens up real questions about both judicial ethics and the case’s outcome. The case involves Boulder, Colorado, and its county, which sued Exxon Mobil and Suncor Energy seeking damages for the local harms of climate change; it’s set for argument October 5. Environmental groups had pushed for Alito to step aside because he owns stock in oil-and-gas companies—ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66, among others—that, while not parties to this particular suit, plainly have interests riding on how the Court treats climate liability. Here’s why the reversal is striking. Back in May, a Court spokeswoman said Alito would not recuse, on the theory that he had no financial interest in any actual party to the case. Now he’s stepping aside anyway. This goes to the heart of the judicial-ethics ...
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
まだレビューはありません