House Rejects Republican Resolution to Limit Supreme Court to Nine Justices
The U.S. House voted down a proposed constitutional amendment last week sponsored by Republicans that would permanently establish a nine-member Supreme Court.
The measure would need a two-thirds majority to pass, but failed by a 212-to-206 margin.
The vote was the latest sign of an escalating partisan battle over the Court's future after President Donald Trump appointed three justices, producing a 6-to-3 conservative majority.
Leading Democrats want to increase the number of justices to 13 to reduce the risk of a long-term supermajority.
Democrats pushed the Supreme Court size issue in the 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns as their frustration grew in response to conservative rulings.
The proposed amendment is known as the “Keep Nine” proposal. It would add a provision to the Constitution saying the Supreme Court “shall be composed of nine justices.”
The Constitution does not specify the number of justices for the Supreme Court. It leaves Congress the authority to set the number.
It has consisted of nine justices since Congress approved the Judiciary Act of 1869. Before that, there were eight.
One of the recent controversial Supreme Court rulings that renewed the Democratic reform movement was the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case. It eliminated a federal right to abortion.
Another controversy arose from the Supreme Court’s 2023 ban on affirmative action policies in college admissions and a 2022 ruling that made it harder for local authorities to restrict gun ownership rights.
Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., described the current Supreme Court as “profoundly partisan and lopsided.”
Democrats say a partisan Supreme Court undermines their constitutional duty of checks and balances over other branches of government. Another reason they chose 13 is that it is the same as the number of federal circuit districts.
Republicans say a bigger Supreme Court would diminish the ability of the Supreme Court to take decisive action when it is needed, potentially threatening its independence.
The vote fell largely along party lines. All but one Democrat opposed the measure.
The joint resolution was introduced by Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz.
"It fixes the number of justices at nine permanently, not because nine is a magic number, but because a fixed court cannot be expanded by whoever happens to win the next election," Biggs said during floor debate.
Republicans also say Democrats’ proposals for a bigger Supreme Court are an example of their socialist tendencies. A larger Supreme Court could make it easier for Democrats to push through their liberal policies, according to some Republicans.
One of them is House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La. He is a chief supporter of the constitutional amendment.
After the vote, he posted a message on X saying, "For members of Congress who swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution, condemning socialism and defending the integrity of the Supreme Court shouldn't be a controversial vote. Sadly, for today's Democrats, they are."
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
Judge Rejects Trump’s Plea to Eliminate New York Criminal Conviction
President Donald Trump’s lawyers are appealing again after their latest effort to eliminate his criminal conviction in New York failed late last month.
He was convicted in May 2024 on 34 counts of falsifying business records.
The underlying issue was a $130,000 hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels, whose claim to a sexual encounter with Trump threatened his 2016 presidential campaign.
In July 2024 the Supreme Court ruled that the president had broad immunity from liability for his official acts. The Supreme Court’s ruling was the basis for Trump’s petition to have his criminal conviction overturned.
U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein denied the plea. He said falsified business records are not the same as “official acts.”
"Paying hush money to an adult film star or engaging in a cover-up of an embarrassment are not subsumed in presidential immunity," Hellerstein wrote in his ruling.
Trump’s legal team said they are appealing Hellerstein’s “baseless and lawless” ruling.
“The Supreme Court’s historic decision on immunity, the federal and New York State Constitutions, and other established legal precedent mandate that the Witch Hunt perpetrated by the Manhattan DA be removed to federal court, and immediately overturned and dismissed,” a statement from the legal team said. “President Trump will be filing a powerful appeal, and will continue defeating Democrat weaponization at every turn.”
Hellerstein wrote that “there is no way that discussions regarding hush money payments to cover up the President’s relations with Stormy Daniels could be an official act.”
He said an affair or its attempted cover-up are “not within the ‘outer perimeter’ of the President’s official responsibilities.”
Trump was convicted while he was between his two presidential terms. After he won his second presidential campaign, the judge in the case gave him an unconditional discharge, which meant he still had a record of a criminal conviction but he was spared from any punishment.
He denied any wrongdoing. The conviction made Trump the first U.S. president to be convicted of a crime.
The ruling was the third time he tried to get the conviction overturned.
He tried to get the case removed to federal court previously in an apparent attempt to bring it under the immunity granted by the Supreme Court. He also has appealed through the state courts. The state appeal is pending.
Hellerstein expressed frustration with Trump’s lawyers for continuing with the case after the previous losses.
He accused Trump and his lawyers of seeking a “second bite at the apple,” which generally is not allowed in federal courts.
He said they waited too long for a second effort to get the case removed to federal court, particularly when the real underlying issue is Trump’s dissatisfaction with earlier rulings.
Trump lawyer Jeffrey Wall argued a new proceeding was needed because prosecutors rushed to trial instead of waiting for the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision granting presidential immunity. The hurried trial left defense attorneys too little time to prepare their case, Wall said.
Hellerstein’s ruling followed a 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals order for him to reconsider whether the case should be removed to federal court. The three-judge appellate panel told Hellerstein to review the case again to determine whether there was sufficient evidence Trump could claim immunity for his “official acts,” as described by the Supreme Court.
Hellerstein said Trump’s arguments were “neither new nor legally sufficient.”
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
Former Stars and Stripes Staff Sue Pentagon over Firings in Free Press Dispute
Staff members at the military oriented newspaper Stars and Stripes are suing the Defense Department in a free press dispute.
They allege a violation of First Amendment rights by job terminations of journalists who advocate for editorial independence.
Their recent reporting on plunging morale aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln was one of the issues that set off the latest firings by Defense Department officials.
They have reported on other difficulties faced by troops previously, leading to a government move beginning last January to place restrictions on the publication’s choice of news stories.
The plaintiffs are seeking a restraining order to block the terminations.
The plaintiffs include Stars and Stripes’ former publisher, the editor-in-chief and a reporter. They are represented as counsel in the complaint by free speech advocacy groups Democracy Defenders Fund and the Yale Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic.
Stars and Stripes traces its earliest history to the Civil War. Its news read by about 3.5 million people worldwide is targeted at military personnel, veterans and their families.
About half its $29 million annual budget comes from the Defense Department and the other half from advertising and subscriptions.
In addition to the First Amendment, the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia says the firings violate Defense Department regulations that give the Stars and Stripes staff discretion over their news reports.
The regulations say there should be “a free flow of news and information” to Stars and Stripes readers “without news management or censorship” by the military, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit argues that the newspaper’s “historical editorial independence is critical to its core mission of gathering and providing unbiased, credible journalism to the U.S. military community.”
The dispute intensified after Middle East reporter Lara Korte and Editor-in-Chief Erik Slavin appeared in a CBS News report in July examining changes the Pentagon ordered for Stars and Stripes.
Korte said during the interview that she worked for “Stars and Stripes,” but not “the Pentagon, not for any administration, not for any policymaker.” She added that her job was “to cover the military community.”
Slavin said he would object to publishing stories that might be inaccurate because of political influence. He warned that government interference with the newspaper’s journalism would cross a line.
The lawsuit says Pentagon officials subsequently characterized the journalists’ comments as insubordination.
The controversy escalated after Stars and Stripes published a report about deteriorating conditions on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, such as food and water shortages and declining mental health among sailors.
During the record nine-month deployment, family and congressional statements cite at least six incidents or attempts by sailors to jump overboard into the ocean. None are known to have died. The Navy has not confirmed the reports.
One day after Stars and Stripes published the USS Abraham Lincoln report on August 11, senior Pentagon public affairs official Andrew Brey sent an e-mail to publisher Max Lederer telling him to fire Slavin and Korte. The lawsuit says the email cited their comments to CBS News.
Lederer refused to fire the two journalists and instead announced plans to retire at the end of September. He cited fundamental differences with the Pentagon.
Lederer was subsequently fired as well. He had led Stars and Stripes as publisher since 2007 and had worked for the newspaper for nearly 25 years. Slavin had worked there for 21 years, while Korte was a reporter and photographer covering the Middle East since December 2024.
Since then, the Defense Department appointed Navy Capt. William Urban as a deputy publisher. The appointment is generating concern among journalists about editorial independence by putting an active duty military officer in the newspaper’s management.
Urban said in an open letter that his priority is “maintaining the highest standard of professional journalism with the credibility that comes with editorial independence.”
Pentagon officials have declined to comment on the pending lawsuit.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
Former U.S. Pardon Attorney Sues Justice Dept. Alleging Political Influence in Firing
Former U.S. Pardon Attorney Liz Oyer is suing the Justice Department, alleging she was unlawfully fired after refusing to recommend restoring actor Mel Gibson’s gun rights.
She is accusing the Justice Department of pressuring her to facilitate a “political favor” for a friend of President Donald Trump.
Gibson lost his gun ownership rights after a 2011 domestic violence conviction.
Oyer says she was fired by now Attorney General Todd Blanche hours after preparing a memo describing her objections. Blanche was then the acting attorney general.
Blanche denied political favoritism. He said during his confirmation hearing last month, “I had known nothing about Mel Gibson or that letter when I fired her. Nothing.”
The official reason for her termination was controversial clemency recommendations she made during the Biden administration.
Blanche said the “number of reasons” Oyer was fired included her recommendation of clemency for federal death row prisoners. Former President Joe Biden commuted the sentences of 37 of the 40 people then on federal death row.
The U.S. Pardon Attorney reviews applications from convicts for presidential pardons and advises the attorney general on whether clemency should be granted to them. Some of the cases – such as pardons for Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol rioters – have political overtones.
Oyer served as pardon attorney from 2022 until her March 2025 dismissal.
She said any allegations that she was fired for poor job performance “materialized out of thin air.”
Her lawsuit says, “During the entirety of her time as Pardon Attorney … Ms. Oyer received exemplary performance reviews throughout her federal service. Her extraordinarily high performance – and her commitment to carrying out her duties lawfully – led to her termination.”
The dispute continues claims by some Justice Department officials that under the Trump administration their decisions are sometimes subject to political interference.
“The ability of all civil servants to uphold the law without fear or favor” is at stake, Oyer said in a statement.
The disputed issue resulted from Gibson’s no contest plea on March 11, 2011, to one count of misdemeanor battery against his former girlfriend, Oksana Grigorieva, at his Malibu, Calif., home. He was sentenced to three years’ probation and domestic violence counseling. He also was ordered to surrender his two semi-automatic pistols, shotgun and a rifle.
Oyer says she objected because of Gibson’s criminal record and because he had not undergone the same extensive background investigation as other people being considered for gun rights restoration.
Oyer says in her lawsuit that a senior Justice Department official asked her to reconsider whether to continue denying Gibson’s application because of his personal relationship with Trump. She said she also was asked to make it appear that an independent review had concluded Gibson should get his guns back.
After she refused both requests, she was summoned from a meeting, handed termination papers by Justice Department security officers and escorted from the building, according to the lawsuit.
Her lawsuit filed last week in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., alleges violations of her civil service job protections as well as First Amendment rights against political reprisal.
She seeks reinstatement and back pay. She also wants a declaration that her termination was unlawful and a court order blocking the Justice Department from further retaliatory job action against her.
In a statement accompanying the lawsuit, she said, “If career officials like me can be fired for refusing to bend the rules to serve the president’s friends, then the message to every public servant is clear: loyalty to a politician matters more than loyalty to the Constitution. I cannot accept that.”
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
D.C. Court of Appeals Reprimands Attorneys Who Submit AI-Assisted Brief
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals rebuked attorneys representing a Deutsche Bank subsidiary last week after they submitted a brief containing citations to four nonexistent court cases, apparently generated with the assistance of artificial intelligence.
The court called the episode a “cautionary tale” about the misuse of AI in legal practice and refused to accept the bank's appellate brief.
The case, Douglas v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., began as a routine appeal of a D.C. Superior Court decision in a foreclosure proceeding involving Barry Douglas, who represented himself. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., trustee for a mortgage-backed securities trust, was represented by the law firm McCabe, Weisberg & Conway LLC.
While reviewing the bank's brief, the appeals court discovered multiple authorities that judges could not locate or confirm as legitimate.
The court ordered the bank to explain why its brief should not be stricken for citing nonexistent cases that were possibly the product of AI “hallucinations.”
Attorney Loishirl W. Hall acknowledged in a response that four of the cited cases did not exist. She told the court she had used Google's generative-AI search tool to help locate legal authority but had failed to verify the citations before filing the brief.
Hall acknowledged that the citations were not legitimate legal authority.
Hall said she subsequently verified the remaining citations and pledged not to rely on AI for legal research without independently confirming the authorities. She also told the court she no longer worked for the firm.
The court said lawyers have an obligation to verify the law they present to judges, regardless of whether a citation came from a traditional research source or an AI system.
“A hallucinated citation is, at best, no citation at all; indeed, it is worse,” the court wrote, warning that fabricated authorities can misdirect judges, waste judicial resources and undermine a client's representation.
The court struck Deutsche Bank's brief and referred the matter to the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel for any investigation it considers appropriate. It also referred the broader question of sanctions for AI-generated errors to its Rules Committee.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.