On September 28, federal district judge Amir Ali in Washington, DC, ruled unlawful the Department of Homeland Security’s attempt to use funding leverage to get local governments to adopt various election rule changes favored by President Donald Trump but never enacted by Congress. While the ruling is limited in its scope, it still counts as a satisfying win for free and independent elections, federalism, and the separation of powers.

Over the past year and a half, Trump has been relentlessly trying to bully and buffalo states and local governments into revamping their election practices in line with his wishes. As I wrote when it started: 

Read the rest of this post →

On September 30, $810 million in appropriated fiscal year (FY) 2026 spending expired because of a Trump administration maneuver known as a pocket rescission. The rescission, which targeted spending that the administration correctly described as wasteful, functions as a unilateral spending cut by the executive. This makes it appealing to many who want to see less spending. However, the pocket rescission approach creates risks, and Republicans and libertarians alike should be wary of how the strategy could be exploited in the future.

The administration’s maneuver has received a mix of criticism and support. Appropriators from both parties decried the pocket rescission, calling it an illegal usurpation of congressional spending authority. Seven states have filed a lawsuit against the administration to undo the rescission. Conservatives such as Reps. Chip Roy (R‑TX) and Scott Perry (R‑PA) have praised the administration, focusing on the importance of cutting wasteful spending. Sen. John Kennedy (R‑LA) criticized Congress for not enacting more cuts.

Read the rest of this post →

For much of the past two years, the debate over noncitizen voting has started from one seemingly uncontroversial premise: federal law makes it illegal for a noncitizen to vote in a federal election.

Yesterday, October 1, a federal judge in Florida complicated that premise considerably.

In United States v. Cox, US District Judge David Leibowitz dismissed a federal prosecution of a noncitizen accused of knowingly voting in the 2020 general election. The surprising reason was not that the defendant was entitled to vote. Florida law prohibits noncitizens from voting, and Judge Leibowitz went out of his way to emphasize that Florida remains perfectly free to prohibit and punish the conduct alleged in the case. Rather, Judge Leibowitz concluded that Congress lacked constitutional authority to enact the particular federal prohibition at issue, 18 U.S.C. § 611. (Order at 1–2.) 

Read the rest of this post →

Number 31 in our series of occasional roundups on election law and policy, this time focusing on ongoing court action with Election Day five weeks away: 

• No, Trump can’t lawfully curtail anti-terrorism funds to states and cities to pressure them to adopt his preferred election practices [DC federal court ruling this week finding that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) overstepped statutory authority, also invoking the major questions doctrine and citing “serious constitutional questions”; Reed Shaw, Just Security (previewing issues in case); and Steve Cavendish, Nashville Banner]. 

• Long-standing Department of Justice (DOJ) policy limits investigative actions late in an election season that could influence the vote: “Doing otherwise runs the risk of chilling legitimate voting and campaign activities and of interjecting the investigation itself into ongoing campaigns and the adjudication of any ensuing election contest,” says DOJ’s manual. But—surprise—DHS isn’t DOJ and is free to do all that [Priscilla Alvarez, Tierney Sneed, and Gabe Cohen, CNN; and Associated Press]. The months of ongoing strenuous effort haven’t thus led to much in the way of prosecutions, however [Election Law Blog; and ProPublica].

  Read the rest of this post →

“Sorry to all you people at the Cato Institute or wherever else—I don’t owe you an explanation for this. I just prefer this.” That was book publisher Jonathan Keeperman explaining to Manhattan Institute’s Chris Rufo why Keeperman’s “desire to preserve homogeneity is just fine.” The podcast clip has been viewed nearly 3 million times on X alone.

The podcast episode was entitled the “Indian Question,” and is Keeperman and Rufo’s hour-long quasi-defense of Texas Republican Bo French’s viral tweet expressing outrage at students celebrating a University of Texas football win merely because they were of Indian ethnicity. It’s worth noticing that respected figures on the political right will defend those types of tweets, but to us it’s also noteworthy that Keeperman chose the Cato Institute as his stand-in for all those who demand reasons for his views.

Read the rest of this post →

Kekai Watanabe alleges that after being brutally assaulted in a federal prison and while in 10-out-of-10 pain, a government nurse told him “to stop being a crybaby” and refused to send him to the hospital. Mr. Watanabe’s coccyx was broken. Untreated for years, the bone chips migrated into his soft tissue.

Mr. Watanabe says the nurse’s deliberate indifference to his serious medical need is an Eighth Amendment violation and that he can seek relief under the Supreme Court’s longstanding Bivens precedent. He filed this suit asking for his injuries to be treated by a specialist and for damages. The Court of Appeals permitted his suit to proceed.

Read the rest of this post →