Please consider taking a few minutes to complete a brief survey about the Executive Functions Roundup. Your feedback will help us improve the Roundup and better serve our readers.
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Trump v. Barbara issued Monday, affirming the District of New Hampshire’s ruling that President Trump’s birthright citizenship order was unconstitutional. The government filed no petition for rehearing, which would have delayed it. (Judgment.) For background, see a previous Roundup.
Judge Mae A. D’Agostino (N.D.N.Y.) on Monday held that New York’s laws restricting when federal law enforcement officers may wear face coverings and requiring them to wear visible identification likely violate the Supremacy Clause, and preliminarily enjoined their enforcement. She denied the United States’ challenge to a third state law ending New York’s agreements allowing local officers to perform federal immigration enforcement. (Opinion.)
Twenty-five states led by Oregon sued on Monday in the U.S. Court of International Trade to challenge President Trump’s Section 301 tariffs. The complaint alleges that the administration’s “third attempt to impose worldwide tariffs—now through Section 301 of the Trade Act—is equally unlawful.” (Complaint.) Ilya Somin urged the states to press major questions and nondelegation arguments. (Volokh.)
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told faith leaders on a private call last week that the Justice Department is working with federal health agencies and the White House “so that the Dobbs decision becomes permanent in every single state.” The Justice Department said the remarks concerned “mail order abortion drugs” alone, and that its 2022 Office of Legal Counsel opinion concluding that the Comstock Act does not bar mailing those drugs is under “a thorough review.” (Recording.) (Politico.)
The Wall Street Journal reported that Immigration and Customs Enforcement has built a round-the-clock program to monitor social media for speech that could threaten its agents or disrupt its operations, and that the Department of Homeland Security has sent hundreds of subpoenas to social media companies to identify anonymous critics. Judges have upheld four grand jury subpoenas seeking users’ identities, but no charges have been filed in those cases. (WSJ.)
Steve Vladeck argued that the Supreme Court’s four rulings against President Trump this term do not establish its independence, given the “massive amount of allegedly unlawful behavior by this administration that the Court has green-lit.” (One First.) Jack Goldsmith previously argued that the Court’s strategy of temporizing preserved its authority while securing presidential compliance many thought impossible. (Executive Functions.)
Pending Interim Order Applications Involving the U.S. Government in the Supreme Court
Trump v. California: The government filed an application on July 27 requesting the Supreme Court to stay a district court injunction that blocked federal agencies from implementing certain portions of the president’s March 31 executive order entitled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections.” The 23 states and the District of Columbia challenging the order filed a consolidated opposition on August 3, arguing that a stay “would allow the federal government to rush out an unprecedented, legally indefensible voter-verification and ballot-interception program.”
Alabama v. California: Twelve states filed an application on July 29 requesting the Supreme Court to stay a district court injunction that blocked federal agencies from implementing certain portions of the president’s March 31 executive order entitled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections.” The 23 states and the District of Columbia challenging the order filed a consolidated opposition on August 3.