Discover Top Posts Tagged with #chris britt

Chris Britt @chrisbritt01

* * * *

Holding the line against Trump's assault on the Constitution

October 29, 2025

Robert B. Hubbell

On Tuesday, the courts and the Senate pushed back against Trump on several fronts, even as Trump continued the unlawful killing of civilians in international waters. While the victories may be temporary, every effort to slow Trump’s unlawful agenda will buy time for the American people to rise up in overwhelming numbers to bring an end to Trump’s ongoing violations of the Constitution. Let’s take a look:

The Ninth Circuit voted to review Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Portland, Oregon.

Two weeks ago, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order lifting a stay issued by a trial judge prohibiting the deployment of the National Guard to Portland, Oregon. Tuesday, eleven judges of the Ninth Circuit voted to rehear the appeal from Judge Karin Immergut’s order prohibiting the deployment of National Guard troops to Portland. See Democracy Docket, Ninth Circuit Restores Block on Trump’s Portland National Guard Deployment.

The order granting en banc review is here: Oregon v. Trump | En banc order | 2025-10-28

You may recall that Judge Immergut’s order found that Trump’s description of the situation in Portland was “untethered from reality.” But the three-judge panel's opinion saw two Trump-appointed judges accept the DOJ’s false statements about the facts allegedly justifying the deployment. See OregonLive.com, Federal lawyers admit errors in officer deployment numbers to Portland ICE building.

Eleven judges of the Ninth Circuit will have the opportunity to reconsider the appeal from Judge Immergut’s order in light of the government’s admission that it made multiple misrepresentations of fact regarding the deployment of federal agents in Portland.

The granting of en banc review is a positive sign and may send a signal to rogue Trump appointees on the Ninth Circuit that their duty is to the Constitution, not to Donald Trump. But it is worth reminding ourselves that Judge Karin Immergut was also a Trump appointee, and the introduction to her opinion issuing the stay against deployment makes clear that she views loyalty to the Constitution as her first duty. Judge Immergut wrote the following in her opinion issued on October 4, 2025:

This case involves the intersection of three of the most fundamental principles in our constitutional democracy. The first concerns the relationship between the federal government and the states. The second concerns the relationship between the United States armed forces and domestic law enforcement. The third concerns the proper role of the judicial branch in ensuring that the executive branch complies with the laws and limitations imposed by the legislative branch. Whether we choose to follow what the Constitution mandates with respect to these three relationships goes to the heart of what it means to live under the rule of law in the United States.

Judge Immergut’s opinion is a template for the Ninth Circuit’s en banc review and is a challenge to the Supreme Court’s unlawful deference to Trump. The courts must continue to hold the line against Trump’s assault on the Constitution.

Federal judge in Chicago orders senior Border Patrol agent to appear in court daily

Greg Bovino has been Trump’s point man in Customs & Border Patrol’s (CBP) invasion of US cities. CBP has been on the receiving end of multiple court orders limiting the use of tear gas and pepper spray. CBP agents have mostly ignored those orders.

On Tuesday, US District Court Judge Sara Ellis finally lost patience with CBP’s flouting of the law and ordered Greg Bovino to appear in her courtroom at 6:00 pm each day to report on CBP’s compliance with the judge’s restraining order regarding use of force. See AP News, Judge orders daily meetings with Border Patrol official in Chicago | AP News

The judge also ordered CBP to turn over full reports on the use of force in the arrest of over 1,500 residents in the Chicago area.

Judge Ellis ripped Bovino for the use of tear gas in a Chicago neighborhood that was scheduled to hold a children’s Halloween parade. Judge Ellis said,

Kids dressed in Halloween costumes, walking to a parade, do not pose an immediate threat for the safety of a law enforcement officer. They just don’t. And you can’t use riot-control weapons against them.

See HuffPo, Chicago Judge Has To Tell Border Official That Kids In Halloween Costumes Are Not A Threat.

Federal judge issues indefinite stay of mass firings during shutdown

US District Judge Susan Illston granted a preliminary injunction that indefinitely bars the Trump administration from engaging in mass firings during the partial government shutdown. See Politico, Judge extends order barring mass firings of federal workers during shutdown.

The arguments by the DOJ attorney in opposition to the preliminary injunction were bizarre and pathetic. Per Politico,

[Assistant US Attorney] Michael Velchik said the firings were lawful and represented the will of the electorate expressed through President Donald Trump’s victory at the polls last year. “The American people selected someone known above all else for his eloquence in communicating to employees that, ‘You’re fired!’” Velchik said, referring to Trump’s trademark line on his television show, “The Apprentice.”

“The will of the people at the polls” is not a valid basis for determining the lawfulness of actions under existing laws. And “You’re fired,” isn’t “eloquent,” it’s crass and cruel. How did Velchik manage to graduate from law school?

Five Senate Republicans vote against Trump’s imposition of unilateral tariffs on imports from Brazil.

Trump is claiming “emergency authority” to impose tariffs on nations worldwide. The exercise of that authority is subject to congressional review (because it was Congress that granted the president the authority to act in emergency situations). On Tuesday, the Senate rejected Trump’s invocation of emergency powers to impose unilateral tariffs on Brazil. See Raw Story, 5 Senate Republicans defect to ‘rebuke’ Trump over unilateral Brazil tariff.

Per Raw Story,

Five Republicans in the Senate bucked their party to join a resolution condemning President Donald Trump’s tariffs against Brazil on Tuesday evening . . . The measure, which passed 52-48, is all but certain to go nowhere as Republicans in the House of Representatives are expected to ignore it. However, it comes amid widespread bipartisan discontent and a general split in the Republican caucus over Trump’s moves to unilaterally slap tariffs on virtually every other country on an “emergency” basis. Shortly before the vote, [Senator Rand] Paul spoke to Raw Story, saying, “I will vote to end the emergency. Emergencies are like war, famine, and tornadoes. Not liking someone’s tariffs is not an emergency. It’s an abuse of the emergency power, and it’s Congress abdicating their traditional role in taxes.”

The Supreme Court has scheduled a hearing next week to consider Trump’s invocation of emergency powers to impose tariffs (a term not used in the statute granting emergency powers). See Bloomberg, Supreme Court Is Told Trump Tariffs Are Illegal $3 Trillion Tax.

Deciding that Trump’s tariffs are illegal and unconstitutional should be an easy call—if the Supreme Court’s majority were not corrupt. I have lost all faith in the Supreme Court, but would welcome any sign of integrity from the Court. I won’t hold my breath.

Trump continues the use of US military to kill non-combatant civilians in international waters.

Killing non-combatant civilians in international waters (or anywhere, for that matter), is illegal. It is likely murder. The Trump administration announced on Tuesday that it killed 14 more people allegedly transporting illegal drugs in international waters. See NYTimes, U.S. Military Kills 14 More People Accused of Smuggling Drugs on Boats.

Per the Times,

A broad range of outside experts in laws governing the use of armed force have said the campaign is illegal because the military is not permitted to deliberately target civilians — even criminal suspects — who are not directly participating in armed hostilities. But the Trump administration has asserted that the president has the power to “determine,” without any authorization from Congress, that drug cartels and those who work for them are enemy combatants.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice § 119 Art. 118, defines murder as follows:

Any person subject to this chapter whom without justification or excuse, unlawfully kills a human being, when he- –(1) has a premeditated design to kill; (2) intends to kill or inflict great bodily harm; . . . is guilty of murder,

The Trump administration has offered no legal “justification or excuse” that makes the killings lawful. While Trump uses words like “narco-terrorist” and “war on terror,” that jargon has no legal force.

In contrast, after 9/11, the United Nations recognized the United States’ right of self-defense against terrorists, and Congress passed an “authorization for the use of military force” against the terrorist organizations responsible for the attacks. Those actions by the UN and Congress constituted “justification” for killing terrorists in the “war on terror.”

Trump has no legal authority to supersede US criminal law merely by declaring someone a “narco-terrorist.’ See Brian Finucane in Just Security, Why the Caribbean Strike is a Dangerous Departure from the “War on Terror”.

Finucane writes,

There is simply no credible argument that an armed conflict exists involving the United States and whoever was on that boat. Nor is there any credible argument that those on the boat presented an imminent threat of armed attack against the United States that could have triggered the initiation of an armed conflict. With neither of these facts being present, we are left with the premeditated killing of human beings, not in armed conflict and not in self-defense.

The officers and enlisted personnel who are carrying out the deadly strikes on non-combatant civilians must know there is no legal justification for the killings. Trump has immunity from criminal prosecution in the U.S., but not so for those military personnel violating the UCMJ’s prohibition against unjustified killing.

Many military families rely on SNAP for basic food assistance

A reader alerted me to an article in Task & Purpose, As food assistance dries up, troops with families face hardship.

The administration has refused to extend SNAP food assistance during the shutdown, despite the existence of contingency funds designed to sustain the program during government shutdowns.

Per the Task & Force article, a USDA study found that a quarter of all military personnel experience food insecurity:

“The military families who rely on SNAP benefits are probably the most vulnerable in our community,” Huck said. “They’re predominantly younger families, junior enlisted troops, they’re families who are already struggling financially, and to lose these benefits is really going to put them at risk of severe hardship.”

Speaker Mike Johnson says Trump was “trolling” Democrats with talk of a third term

Per the NYTimes, Speaker Mike Johnson confirmed that Trump was “trolling” Democrats with his talk of a third term. See NYTimes, Mike Johnson Dismisses Trump Third Term Talk — But Applauds the ‘Trolling’.

Johnson said,

The president knows, and he and I have talked about the constrictions of the Constitution . . . . I don’t see a way to amend the Constitution; I don’t see the path for that. The ‘Trump 2028’ cap is one of the most popular that’s ever been produced. And he has a good time with that, trolling the Democrats, whose hair is on fire about the very prospect.

I received many emails today from readers asking my reaction to a scheme that would have two Republicans run for president and vice president, then have Trump appointed Speaker of the House (assuming Republicans win the House and 218 Republican members would vote to elect Trump Speaker), then have the president and vice president resign, allowing Trump to become President under the Presidential Succession Act (which is of dubious constitutionality in its inclusion of members of Congress in the line of succession).

We shouldn’t waste our time entertaining such far-fetched scenarios. There are dozens of contingencies that would have to occur for that scheme to be successful. Anyone who runs for president on the platform, “I will resign as soon as I win,” isn’t going to win. Trump is more unpopular than any president since Richard Nixon—and becoming more so by the day.

A complete answer to the above scheme is to take and retain control of the House and the presidency—rather than assuming that Democrats cannot gain control of Congress and cannot beat Trump (or his surrogates) in 2028. As I wrote yesterday,

We don’t need to react with reflexive panic to every head-fake and troll by Trump . . . . We need to keep up the good work while maintaining our confidence and optimism! Stay strong, and do not let Trump’s mind games distract us from the goal of defending democracy every day in every way possible!

Texas sues makers of Tylenol based on Robert Kennedy’s misleading claims

Texas has taken the cue from Robert Kennedy’s misleading claims that Tylenol causes autism. See ABC News, Texas AG sues makers of Tylenol, claiming they hid alleged links to autism. Even GOP Senator Bill Cassidy condemned the lawsuit by Texas:

I’m a doctor, so I’m always going to go where the medical science lands and the best evidence is there’s no relationship.

If you are concerned about using Tylenol because of Robert Kennedy’s misleading claims, please read this post by Katelyn Jetelina and Kristen Panthagani, MD, PhD, Your Local Epidemiologist (on Substack), Tylenol and autism: What parents deserve to know.

As explained by Jetelina and Panthagani, genetics is strongly associated with autism. Studies relied on by Robert Kennedy did not control for genetic similarities and, therefore, found a low association between the use of Tylenol and autism. But when a large study (in Sweden) controlled for genetics (by controlling for sibling relationships), the association between Tylenol and autism disappeared. Again, if you are concerned, please read the article by Jetelina and Panthagani.

Concluding Thoughts

The multiple victories against Trump’s agenda on Tuesday are encouraging, especially the pushback by five Senate Republicans against Trump’s illegal tariffs. Republicans know that the tariffs are hurting the American people and will be a problem in 2026 and 2028. Trump isn’t going to relent on tariffs unless the Supreme Court rules that Trump’s use of emergency powers is unconstitutional (as it should).

Whatever happens, it is a lose-lose proposition for Trump and Republicans. As noted yesterday, the tariffs are causing retail closures and corporate layoffs. Consumers dislike the tariffs and know they are disguised taxes.

If the Supreme Court allows the tariffs to stay in effect, the economic effects will hurt Republicans at the ballot box. If the Supreme Court rules that the tariffs are illegal, it will be a major blow to Trump’s assault on the Constitution.

We should gladly accept the small wins and continue our fight. The accumulation of victories, large and small, will serve as the staging ground for the next round of resistance. Sooner or later, that resistance will overwhelm Trump’s enablers, who will fear the political will of the American people more than they fear the retribution of a rapidly aging and soon-to-be lame duck.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]