Texas Weekly Online

Texas-trans-white
Menu
Menu

Year: 2025

FTC firings take spotlight in Trump’s fight to erase independence of agencies

FTC firings take spotlight in Trump’s fight to erase independence of agencies

The Supreme Court has temporarily allowed President Donald Trump to fire numerous Democrat-appointed members of independent agencies, but one case still moving through the legal system carries the greatest implications yet for a president’s authority to do that. In Slaughter v. Trump, a Biden-appointed member of the Federal Trade Commission has vowed to fight what she calls her “illegal firing,” setting up a possible scenario in which the case lands before the Supreme Court. The case would pose the most direct question yet to the justices about where they stand on Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the nearly century-old decision regarding a president’s power over independent regulatory agencies. John Shu, a constitutional law expert who served in both Bush administrations, told Fox News Digital he thinks the high court is likely to side with the president if and when the case arrives there. SUPREME COURT SAYS TRUMP CAN PROCEED WITH FIRING DEMOCRAT-APPOINTED CPSC MEMBERS “I think it’s unlikely that Humphrey’s Executor survives the Supreme Court, at least in its current form,” Shu said, adding he anticipates the landmark decision will be overturned or “severely narrowed.” Humphrey’s Executor centered on President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s decision to fire an FTC commissioner with whom he disagreed politically. The case marked the first instance of the Supreme Court limiting a president’s removal power by ruling that Roosevelt overstepped his authority. The court found that presidents could not dismiss FTC commissioners without a reason, such as malfeasance, before their seven-year terms ended, as outlined by Congress in the FTC Act. However, the FTC’s functions, which largely center on combating anticompetitive business practices, have expanded in the 90 years since Humphrey’s Executor. “The Federal Trade Commission of 1935 is a lot different than the Federal Trade Commission today,” Shu said. He noted that today’s FTC can open investigations, issue subpoenas, bring lawsuits, impose financial penalties and more. The FTC now has executive, quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial functions, Shu said. If the Supreme Court’s decision to temporarily allow two labor board members’ firings is any indication, the high court stands ready to make the FTC less independent and more accountable to Trump. In a 6-3 order, the Supreme Court cited the “considerable executive power” that the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board have, saying a president “may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf.” TRUMP’S CONTROVERSIAL PLAN TO FIRE FEDERAL WORKERS FINDS FAVOR WITH SUPREME COURT The order did not mention Humphrey’s Executor, but that and other moves indicate the Supreme Court has been chipping away at the 90-year-old ruling and is open to reversing it. The case of Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya gets closest to the heart of Humphrey’s Executor. Slaughter enjoyed a short-lived victory when a federal judge in Washington, D.C., found that Trump violated the Constitution and ruled in her favor on July 17. She was able to return to the FTC for a few days, but the Trump administration appealed the decision and, on July 21, the appellate court paused the lower court judge’s ruling. Judge Loren AliKhan had said in her summary judgment that Slaughter’s case was almost identical to William Humphrey’s. SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS TRUMP’S REMOVAL OF BIDEN APPOINTEES FROM FEDERAL BOARDS “It is not the role of this court to decide the correctness, prudence, or wisdom of the Supreme Court’s decisions—even one from ninety years ago,” AliKhan, a Biden appointee, wrote. “Whatever the Humphrey’s Executor Court may have thought at the time of that decision, this court will not second-guess it now.” The lawsuit arose from Trump firing Slaughter and Bedoya, the two Democratic-appointed members of the five-member commission. They alleged that Trump defied Humphrey’s Executor by firing them in March without cause in a letter that “nearly word-for-word” mirrored the one Roosevelt sent a century ago. Bedoya has since resigned, but Slaughter is not backing down from a legal fight in which Trump appears to have the upper hand. “Like dozens of other federal agencies, the Federal Trade Commission has been protected from presidential politics for nearly a century,” Slaughter said in a statement after she was re-fired. “I’ll continue to fight my illegal firing and see this case through, because part of why Congress created independent agencies is to ensure transparency and accountability.” Now a three-judge panel comprising two Obama appointees and one Trump appointee is considering a longer-term pause and asked for court filings to be submitted by July 29, meaning the judges could issue their decision soon thereafter.

WATCH: Gabbard’s Obama bombshell has GOP demanding accountability while Dems question timing as ‘distraction’

WATCH: Gabbard’s Obama bombshell has GOP demanding accountability while Dems question timing as ‘distraction’

After reports that top officials from the Obama administration allegedly orchestrated a coordinated attempt to sabotage President Donald Trump’s 2016 election victory, GOP lawmakers are calling for transparency and accountability, while their Democratic colleagues are questioning the timing and credibility of the new claims. Trump’s director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, released a trove of intelligence documents beginning last week that Gabbard has said show former President Barack Obama and some of his closest advisors promoted a “contrived narrative” that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to sabotage Trump.  However, Democrats have insisted that congressional investigations already prove that Russia did help Trump in the 2016 election, while also questioning the timing of the allegations due to pressure on Trump to release more Epstein files. “It is profoundly dishonest, and it’s dangerous,” Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz told Fox News Digital, in reference to the allegations from Gabbard. “What I have urged the administration to do is engage in radical transparency, make it all public and expose just how much the Obama administration knew what they were doing – that they knew they were lying. I think anybody that violated the law needs to be held accountable.” DNI GABBARD CLAIMS ‘DEEP STATE ACTORS’ DIDN’T WANT TRUMP-RUSSIA INFORMATION TO ‘SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY’ But Democratic California Sen. Adam Schiff told Fox News Digital he thinks the allegations are moot, pointing to former FBI Director Robert Mueller’s 2019 report, which he said “documented Russia’s efforts to help denigrate Hillary Clinton, which gave a boost to the Trump campaign. “I think what Gabbard and her staff are doing is dishonest,” he added. However, Republican Oklahoma Sen. James Lankford argued it has “long been established” that the Steele dossier was “clearly a Clinton plant” and that the Clinton campaign was actually “cooperating with the Russians to be able to actually use the Russians to be able to interfere with President Trump’s campaign.” “What Tulsi Gabbard is pulling out is to say, ‘How deep did this go into the White House that they knew about the Steele Dossier, they knew it was a Clinton document. When did they start pushing this out, and what official resources were they using to try to add validity to this to be able to undercut the election?’” Lankford said.  “We got a long way to go still, but it’s good to be able to get all information out, to be able to pull it out there and to say, ‘Let’s let everybody look at it and let the chips fall where they may.’” OBAMA-ERA OFFICIALS MUM ON ALLEGATIONS OF ‘MANUFACTURED’ INTELLIGENCE LAUNCHING TRUMP-RUSSIA PROBE Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., said he believed Gabbard was doing the right thing, also expressing hope for extreme transparency amid the alarming allegations. “Part of what this election was about, it was about transparency and government accountability. And that’s exactly what [Gabbard] is trying to do, and that’s exactly what the Trump administration is trying to do,” Scott said. “Let’s get the people the facts. Let’s follow where the facts are. If somebody’s done anything, we’ll hold them accountable. So, i think the right process is what’s happening.”            Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., a former CIA analyst, questioned the timing of Gabbard’s release of the information, saying even her 10-year-old nephew understood the move as “a dodge and a distraction” to get eyes off the ongoing Epstein controversy. Amid Gabbard’s document release at the beginning of last week, Trump has been facing calls from within the GOP for the release of more documents and information pertaining to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. “President Trump had four years in his first term, and all the time since then, to go after this issue, and he picks the same day that his name appears in the Epstein files to talk about Barack Obama,” Slotkin told Fox News Digital. “American people are not dumb. Like, we get it. Trump wanted to talk about something different. I have to see these reports, and see how they’re sourced. … I like to read and make my own assessment. But the timing can’t be missed. The president is trying to dodge and distract you.” While partisan affiliation may play a part in how lawmakers and the broader public view the Obama allegations released by Gabbard, Sen.  John Boozman, R-Ark., said he thinks the issue “transcends” party affiliation.  “Republican, Democrat, I mean, you know, this is something that transcends all that. This is really important,” Boozman told Fox News Digital. “Hopefully we’ll have open transparency so people will understand what’s going on. And whatever it is, I’m sure Congress will be involved, and certainly the Justice Department is involved. So, I think these are all good things.”

Texas man sues California doctor in unprecedented abortion pill case over unborn child’s alleged ‘murder’

Texas man sues California doctor in unprecedented abortion pill case over unborn child’s alleged ‘murder’

A Texas man has filed a landmark federal wrongful death lawsuit against a California abortion provider, alleging the physician “murdered” his unborn children by mailing abortion pills across state lines.  The case, Rodriguez v. Coeytaux, marks the first of its kind to test how far pro-life litigants can go to sidestep blue state abortion shield laws using century-old federal statutes and Texas civil code. Filed July 20 in the Southern District of Texas, the lawsuit accuses Dr. Remy Coeytaux of aiding illegal self-managed abortions in 2024, by mailing abortion-inducing drugs to Galveston County, Texas, where they were allegedly used to end two pregnancies.  Plaintiff Jerry Rodriguez claims his girlfriend’s estranged husband purchased the pills from Coeytaux through a Venmo transaction and pressured her to take them, ending two pregnancies Rodriguez says were his. FEDERAL JUDGE PARTIALLY BLOCKS LAW BANNING ADULTS FROM HELPING MINORS GET OUT-OF-STATE ABORTIONS At the heart of the suit is an alleged $150 Venmo payment to “Remy Coeytaux MD PC” labeled “Aed axes,” followed by his girlfriend’s name. The lawsuit states Rodriguez interprets “Aed axes” to be a phonetic spelling of “Aid Access,” a network that helps women obtain abortion pills.  Rodriguez alleges the first abortion occurred in September 2024, at the home of his girlfriend’s mother, and the second in January 2025, at the home of her estranged husband. Ultrasound images from January, attached as Exhibit 2, are offered as proof of a second pregnancy. According to the complaint, the baby was a boy. Rodriguez is seeking over $75,000 in damages, certification of a national class of “fathers of unborn children,” and a permanent injunction barring Coeytaux from mailing abortion drugs in violation of state or federal law. MEDICAL GROUPS URGE KENNEDY, FDA TO REEXAMINE BROAD APPROVAL OF ABORTION DRUGS The complaint’s legal foundation has drawn attention. The lawsuit revives the long-dormant Comstock Act, an 1873 federal anti-obscenity law banning the mailing of abortion-related materials. Though unenforced for over a century, the Comstock Act remains on the books.  Jonathan Mitchell, the attorney behind Texas’s heartbeat law (SB8), represents Rodriguez in the case. He argues that Dr. Remy Coeytaux violated 18 U.S.C. §§ 1461 and 1462, the federal Comstock Act, by knowingly using the mail to send abortion-inducing drugs from California to Texas. The suit also alleges Coeytaux committed felony murder under Texas Penal Code § 19.02 by knowingly aiding an illegal abortion. It cites multiple violations of Texas law, including statutes that require abortion drugs to be administered only by in-state physicians, after informed consent and a mandatory ultrasound, and only at licensed abortion facilities. Coeytaux, who is not licensed in Texas, allegedly met none of those requirements. PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT CONFRONTS HIGH ABORTION RATES THREE YEARS LATER AFTER DOBBS The case is already being seen as a strategic test of blue state abortion shield laws. States like California, New York, and Washington have passed measures to protect their abortion providers from legal risks when treating out-of-state patients. But Rodriguez’s legal team avoided those roadblocks by filing a civil wrongful death suit directly in federal court, a move some legal scholars say could offer a new route for anti-abortion plaintiffs to reach providers beyond their own state’s borders. As of Friday, court records show Coeytaux had not filed a response to the complaint, and he has not made any public statements about the case.  CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP Pro-abortion groups are expected to contest both the interpretation of the Comstock Act and the standing of private citizens to bring wrongful death claims tied to out-of-state telehealth prescriptions. If the case survives early procedural hurdles, it may offer a new template for pro-life litigants to target the supply chain of abortion pills three years after Dobbs was decided at the Supreme Court. Coeytaux did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

DNI Tulsi Gabbard declassified Trump-Russia docs: Here’s what they say

DNI Tulsi Gabbard declassified Trump-Russia docs: Here’s what they say

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard declassified a slew of documents this month, revealing that Obama administration officials “manufactured” intelligence to push the Trump-Russia collusion narrative. Here’s a look at the newly declassified records: Documents revealed that in the months leading up to the November 2016 election, the intelligence community consistently assessed that Russia was “probably not trying … to influence the election by using cyber means.” One instance was on Dec. 7, 2016, weeks after the election. Then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s talking points stated, “Foreign adversaries did not use cyberattacks on election infrastructure to alter the U.S. presidential election outcome.” Fox News Digital obtained a declassified copy of the Presidential Daily Brief, which was prepared by the Department of Homeland Security, with reporting from the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, FBI, National Security Agency, Department of Homeland Security, State Department and open sources, for Obama, dated Dec. 8, 2016. “We assess that Russian and criminal actors did not impact recent U.S. election results by conducting malicious cyber activities against election infrastructure,” the Presidential Daily Brief stated. “Russian Government-affiliated actors most likely compromised an Illinois voter registration database and unsuccessfully attempted the same in other states.” But the brief stated that it was “highly unlikely” the effort “would have resulted in altering any state’s official vote result.” “Criminal activity also failed to reach the scale and sophistication necessary to change election outcomes,” it stated.  The brief noted that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence assessed that any Russian activities “probably were intended to cause psychological effects, such as undermining the credibility of the election process and candidates.” The brief stated that cyber criminals “tried to steal data and to interrupt election processes by targeting election infrastructure, but these actions did not achieve a notable disruptive effect.” Fox News Digital obtained declassified, but redacted, communications from the FBI in the Presidential Daily Brief, stating that it “should not go forward until the FBI” had shared its “concerns.” Those communications revealed that the FBI drafted a “dissent” to the original Presidential Daily Brief.  OBAMA ADMIN ‘MANUFACTURED’ INTELLIGENCE TO CREATE 2016 RUSSIAN ELECTION INTERFERENCE NARRATIVE, DOCUMENTS SHOW The communications revealed that the brief was expected to be published Dec. 9, 2016, the following day, but later communications revealed the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, “based on some new guidance,” decided to “push back publication” of the Presidential Daily Brief.  “It will not run tomorrow and is not likely to run until next week,” wrote the deputy director of the Presidential Daily Brief at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, whose name is redacted.  The following day, Dec. 9, 2016, a meeting convened in the White House Situation Room, with the subject line starting: “Summary of Conclusions for PC Meeting on a Sensitive Topic (REDACTED.)” The meeting included top officials in the National Security Council, Clapper, then-CIA Director John Brennan, then-National Security Advisor Susan Rice, then-Secretary of State John Kerry, then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch, then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, among others, to discuss Russia. The declassified meeting record, obtained by Fox News Digital, revealed that principals “agreed to recommend sanctioning of certain members of the Russian military intelligence and foreign intelligence chains of command responsible for cyber operations as a response to cyber activity that attempted to influence or interfere with U.S. elections, if such activity meets the requirements” from an executive order that demanded the blocking of property belonging to people engaged in cyber activities. After the meeting, according to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Clapper’s executive assistant emailed intelligence community leaders tasking them to create a new intelligence community assessment “per the president’s request” that detailed the “tools Moscow used and actions it took to influence the 2016 election.” “ODNI will lead this effort with participation from CIA, FBI, NSA, and DHS,” the record states. Later, Obama officials “leaked false statements to media outlets” claiming that “Russia has attempted through cyber means to interfere in, if not actively influence, the outcome of an election.” By Jan. 6, 2017, a new Intelligence Community Assessment was released that, according to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, “directly contradicted the IC assessments that were made throughout the previous six months.”  Intelligence officials told Fox News Digital that the ICA was “politicized” because it “suppressed intelligence from before and after the election showing Russia lacked intent and capability to hack the 2016 election.”  Officials also said it deceived the American public “by claiming the IC made no assessment on the ‘impact’ of Russian activities,” when the intelligence community “did, in fact, assess for impact.”  “The unpublished December PDB stated clearly that Russia ‘did not impact’ the election through cyber hacks on the election,” an official told Fox News Digital. FBI LAUNCHES CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS OF JOHN BRENNAN, JAMES COMEY: DOJ SOURCES The official also said the ICA had assessed that “Russia was responsible for leaking data from the DNC and DCCC,” while “failing to mention that FBI and NSA previously expressed low confidence in this attribution.”  Officials said the intelligence was “politicized” and then “used as the basis for countless smears seeking to delegitimize President Trump’s victory, the years-long Mueller investigation, two Congressional impeachments, high level officials being investigated, arrested, and thrown in jail, heightened US-Russia tensions, and more.” A report prepared by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in 2020 said the intelligence community did not have any direct information that Russian President Vladimir Putin wanted to help elect Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election, but, at the “unusual” direction of then-President Barack Obama, published “potentially biased” or “implausible” intelligence suggesting otherwise. The report, based on an investigation launched by former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., was dated Sept. 18, 2020. At the time of the publication of the report, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., was the chairman of the committee. The report has never before been released to the public and instead has remained highly classified within the intelligence community. Fox News

Federal judge tosses Trump DOJ lawsuit against sanctuary policies in Chicago

Federal judge tosses Trump DOJ lawsuit against sanctuary policies in Chicago

The Trump administration’s battle with Democrat-controlled jurisdictions and their sanctuary polices suffered a blow on Friday when a federal judge in Chicago dismissed a case challenging their legality. Judge Lindsay Jenkins of the Northern District of Illinois, a President Biden appointee, granted the defendants’ motion for dismissal, ruling that the city’s ordinances are lawful protections not subject to federal enforcement mandates. The Trump Justice Department, in a February filing, accused the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago of unlawfully interfering with President Donald Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration as it aims to carry out mass deportations.  TRUMP DOJ SUES NEW YORK CITY OVER LONG-STANDING SANCTUARY IMMIGRATION POLICIES Sanctuary cities or sanctuary policies limit co-operation between local officials and law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. The Trump administration has long railed against the measures, arguing they make such areas a haven for criminal illegal immigrants and contribute to increased crime. The Justice Department alleges these laws violate the U.S. Constitution’s “Supremacy Clause” under the Tenth Amendment, which states that federal law preempts state and local laws that may conflict with it. But Jenkins rejected the argument, ruling that states retain significant powers not explicitly granted to the federal government. “Finding that these same Policy provisions constitute discrimination or impermissible regulation would provide an end-run around the Tenth Amendment,” the judge wrote. “It would allow the federal government to commandeer States under the guise of intergovernmental immunity — the exact type of direct regulation of states barred by the Tenth Amendment.”  MAYOR JOHNSON WARNS TRUMP AGAINST DEPLOYING FEDERAL TROOPS FOR IMMIGRATION CRACKDOWN IN CHICAGO The Chicago City Council passed an ordinance in 2012 that stops city agencies and employees from getting involved in civil immigration enforcement or helping federal authorities with such efforts. The Illinois legislature passed a similar state law, known as the TRUST Act, in 2017. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson said he was pleased with the decision and that the city is safer when police focus on the needs of Chicagoans.  “This ruling affirms what we have long known: that Chicago’s Welcoming City Ordinance is lawful and supports public safety. The City cannot be compelled to cooperate with the Trump Administration’s reckless and inhumane immigration agenda,” he said in a statement. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP The Trump administration has sued several jurisdictions over their sanctuary policies, including a filing this week against New York City. The administration has also sued several New Jersey cities, as well as Los Angeles. Attorney General Pam Bondi said the federal government was left with no choice but to protect New Yorkers by filing the suit. “If New York’s leaders won’t step up to protect their citizens, we will,” she wrote on X.  The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.