Multiple judges say no to Trump's overreach today

[Rideback]

Since I posted this, now the number is 7 for cases Trump lost Thursday alone.

[just-jim]

.

But I should mention that 9% is also the proportion of Americans who told yougov this week that they have a favorable view of the black plague"
Acyn

I am going to bet that 9% includes the same illiterate goons who believe in ‘chem-trails’, that vaccines cause autism and that Covid-19 was planned.

“When you dont know how anything works, everything is a conspiracy”
.

[mister_coffee]

I think the mis administration will look back at these late April polling numbers fondly as "the good old days" in the coming months.

The trade war will really start to bite in the next few months and even if everything is 100 percent reversed and brought back to what it was in December of 2024 we are looking at several months of insane economic disruptions. Likely lots of businesses will be forced to shut down and lots of people will lose their jobs.

Don't miss any chance to sweetly remind any MAGA cult member that they thought this was a good idea.

[Rideback]

New polling has Trump with the worst polls in history for a President's first 100 days. And then there's this:
"88% of the country says no, no, he cannot defy a supreme court ruling. Only 9% say yes he can. And you know, it's not the same thing. But I should mention that 9% is also the proportion of Americans who told yougov this week that they have a favorable view of the black plague"
Acyn

[Rideback]

Trump Was Completely Defeated in Court Today
An almost unprecedented occurrence in recent history: On a single day, multiple federal courts declared key directives of a sitting president unconstitutional. It’s a day on which, as a journalist, one can barely keep up - not with the weight of the rulings, not with one’s own sleep. Even summarizing it in a single article feels like a compromise in the face of the overwhelming flood of justice triggered by Trump.
The Judiciary vs. the State - Trump’s Decrees Reflected in the Courts
On April 24, 2025, it wasn’t the American people who held Donald Trump accountable - it was the law. Federal judges across the country struck down several core measures of his authoritarian reorganization of society — one presidential decree after another met with judicial resistance. It is a day one experiences only under Donald Trump: a president who systematically wages war against the Constitution, the judiciary, and public education — and loses.
Proof of Citizenship – Blocked
Federal Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in Washington, D.C., was the first to strike down Trump’s directive requiring proof of documented U.S. citizenship for federal voter registration. The requirement was to be fulfilled through passports, military IDs, or REAL ID-compliant driver’s licenses. According to Kollar-Kotelly, the measure endangered the voting rights of millions of U.S. citizens and was incompatible with the constitutionally guaranteed right to vote. She issued a preliminary injunction — a judicial slap in the face to a president who justifies his mandate with false claims of election fraud.
Cristian and Kilmar – Two Names Against the Deportation Machine
In Maryland, Federal Judge Stephanie Gallagher condemned the Trump administration for unlawfully deporting a young Venezuelan man named Cristian to El Salvador. His asylum application was still pending. Gallagher explicitly referenced the parallel case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who had also been deported that same day — despite a court order. Gallagher ordered Cristian’s return and stated clearly: “Standing by and taking no action is not facilitation.” Not even a president can override court settlements.
Sanctuary Cities Prevail – Trump Loses
In California, Federal Judge William Orrick delivered another blow: Trump’s attempt to cut federal funding to so-called sanctuary cities was unconstitutional. San Francisco and 13 other cities had filed suit. Orrick recalled that Trump had already suffered a similar defeat in 2017. Then, as now, the president sought to punish municipalities that refused to cooperate in deportation efforts. But just as before, the president lacked the legal foundation for such punitive measures.
Diversity Is Not a Crime – Even If Trump Says So
In New Hampshire, Federal Judge Landya McCafferty pushed back against the Education Department’s anti-diversity campaign. Her ruling: The guidance aimed at dismantling DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) programs in schools was constitutionally vague and infringed on the free speech of educators. If a professor is punished for teaching that structural racism exists, but not punished for denying its existence, she wrote, that is “textbook viewpoint discrimination.” It doesn’t get much clearer than that.
Judge Gallagher also intervened again in Maryland: She halted the enforcement of an education memorandum that forced teachers to choose between silence and sanctions. Such an order, she ruled, was not only vague but a direct attack on free speech and education itself.
An Authoritarian President Caught in the Judiciary’s Net
What this day reveals is more than legal precision — it is a constitutional outcry against an executive that seeks to override the law. Donald Trump aimed to use executive power to reshape the entire voting system, silence marginalized groups, regiment education, and criminalize migration. But on April 24, 2025, the judiciary — from Washington to California — stood firm against this assault on democratic order.
What remains is this insight: If the separation of powers still functions in America, it does so despite — not because of — this president."