by | Apr 2, 2025 | The Hill
Alec Baldwin says the country is in a “bad” state of political division, describing it as a “pre-Civil War environment.”
“Boy, you can see now that we are in a pre-Civil War culture now,” the “30 Rock” star said in an
posted Tuesday.
“When they describe things back then politically — there were profound differences of course in terms of just history, and age and what life was like back then, and cotton and slavery,” Baldwin, 66, said.
“When I look at the politics of it, of where people are in this country today, and the division, and how they’re holding fast and no one’s going to falter, no one’s going to break or compromise — and it’s bad,” the Academy Award-nominated actor told his 2.5 million social media followers.
The performer, whose involuntary manslaughter charge stemming from an on-set shooting while filming his movie “Rust,”
by a New Mexico judge last year, has been a
and sometime “Saturday Night Live” impersonator of President Trump.
Baldwin said his thoughts were triggered after recently watching Ken Burns’s 1990 TV documentary series “The Civil War.”
“In order for us to get anywhere, it doesn’t seem likely right now,” he said.
“Watching this show really reminded me of how we are in a very similar state now, in a pre-Civil War culture,” Baldwin said.
by | Apr 2, 2025 | The Hill
Some Republicans in Congress have proposed changing the budget reconciliation process to begin using a “
” baseline that ignores expirations under law, instead of the traditional “current law” baseline.
This would be a serious act of fiscal irresponsibility, making it easier for either party to circumvent important budgetary guardrails, thereby accelerating the growth of our national debt by many trillions for years to come.
The budget reconciliation process enables Congress to change certain parts of the budget with only a 51-vote majority in the Senate. This legislative process includes a key fiscal guardrail under the Budget Act, commonly known as the
, which Congress established 35 years ago to prohibit long-term fiscal damage to the U.S.
The issue is the “before” picture. What are you comparing proposed policy changes to? Should the baseline comparison assume this year’s policies continue indefinitely, which is “current policy,” or should it reflect changes that are scheduled to happen automatically, which is “current law”?
This battle may seem deep in the technical weeds, but it actually has an enormous impact on fiscal policymaking because it affects how many trillions of dollars in the budget are treated under the rules.
The proponents’ stated rationale for seeking current policy is a claim that it’s “unfair” that spending is treated “differently” from taxes in the current law baseline because some programs are assumed to continue even though they are not permanent, allegedly making it “easier” to increase spending than to cut taxes.
This argument has little validity and is wholly insufficient to justify such a significant budgetary process change.
First, discretionary spending cannot be changed through the budget reconciliation process. Therefore, whatever baseline assumption is used, from zeroing it out completely to growing it by leaps and bounds, is entirely irrelevant because this part of the budget can only be changed through the appropriation process.
Second, of those programs that are eligible to be changed through reconciliation, the vast majority are already permanent under law, so their future estimates are exactly the same in both the current law and current policy baseline.
So what’s left? The reality is that there are very few reconciliation-eligible programs that are not permanent, but are assumed to continue in the current law baseline.
In fact, the Peter G. Peterson Foundation’s estimate of
released by the Congressional Budget Office in January concluded that these programs represent only 1.7 percent of total spending. (One of us is an executive vice president at the Peterson Foundation.) Their baseline treatment was established through a bipartisan
in 1985.
The fact that a tiny portion of spending is treated differently is certainly not sufficient cause to change the budgetary treatment of tax provisions that affect many trillions of revenue. Those wanting to fix this discrepancy should amend the 1985 act rather than deteriorate the entire baseline projection.
It’s also important to remember that there are legitimate policy reasons for many of the expiration dates under law, for example, temporary tax relief provided during natural disasters or the COVID pandemic.
It would make no sense for a budget baseline to assume all of these continue forever simply because they are “current policy” in a single moment. Further, in many cases, provisions were time-limited to make them more affordable, which simply gets ignored if you later assume away the cost of extending them.
While it’s important to debunk the stated rationale for the current policy baseline, the devastating impact would be to conceal significant growth in the national debt by circumventing a point of order under the Budget Act in order to extend all of the 2017 tax cuts permanently.
But changes in the legislative process have lasting effects. For example, letting this change happen would enable any future Congress, from either party, to do a dangerous “two-step” debt dance that adds trillions of permanent deficits.
Step one would be to pass a new spending program or tax cut provision that expires in a year, appearing to add very little to deficits. Then, in step two, Congress would permanently extend their “newly-created current policy” because it is now included in the baseline, appearing to cost nothing to extend, thereby avoiding the Byrd Rule’s point of order.
With this gimmick, the permanent costs of the policy are never accounted for because the policy is only temporary in step one, and then it’s assumed to be already permanent in step two. In seeking to do away with this fiscal guardrail, Republicans should be careful what they wish for.
Imagine a Democratic-controlled Congress passing a temporary Medicare for All bill in step one and then easily making it permanent in step two. Are Republican leaders sure they want to enable this type of policymaking? Similar to eliminating the filibuster, this is the kind of institution-altering idea that’s tempting when your party is in control, but has the opposite effect when the other party is in power.
The best way to make policies permanent within the budget rules is simple: pay for them. There are many trillions of available spending and revenue offsets, so lawmakers have no shortage of options to implement their desired reforms in a responsible way.
In fact, this is what was done in 2017 for many of the
provisions — they were made permanent because they were fully offset and thus complied with the reconciliation requirements. But extending the remaining provisions of the act that expire is no small fiscal matter: The
their permanent extension without offsets would double annual deficits over the long run.
Changing the baseline would be a blatant circumvention of foundational budget process rules and should be rejected by the Senate parliamentarian and all fiscally responsible members of Congress. With
in debt and
already being added over the next 10 years, we simply can’t afford to weaken our budget process any further.
Republicans should set a positive fiscal example by complying with the Budget Act and the Byrd Rule and governing by making real and responsible fiscal choices. Congress has already proven that it has an easy enough time adding to our debt — changing the baseline policy would set a precedent that we would all surely regret.
Brett Loper is executive vice president of policy for the nonpartisan
, and is a former deputy chief of staff to House Speaker John Boehner from 2011 to 2013. G. William Hoagland is senior vice president at the
and a former Senate Budget Committee staff director.
by | Apr 2, 2025 | The Hill
I am an early American historian. I have spent decades studying and writing about the history of our country and its remarkable people. The current cultural climate is filled with historical consciousness, but also with widespread misunderstandings and misrepresentations of history.
One of the most striking aspects of this moment is the pervasive sense of instability. Many Americans feel an anxiety that is difficult to describe, a visceral apprehension about what comes next.
As historians, we are often distanced from this sensation because we know how past events turned out. But living through history in real-time makes that sense of unpredictability palpable in a way that is rarely captured in historical narratives.
Adding to this uncertainty is the intense battle over our national narratives and historical identity. I have witnessed, with growing concern, the dismissal of the
and key leadership at the
— an institution responsible for safeguarding our historical records and playing a crucial role in presidential elections.
I have also seen the troubling erasure of history from public spaces, particularly online. Websites containing information about the
,
,
and
have been quietly removed.
Even references to
, the plane that dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan, in 1945, were scrubbed from government web pages due to politically motivated keyword searches that apparently disregarded content.
More personally, I recently discovered that my own writings had been removed from National Park Service websites. Over the years, I was invited by the service to educate staff nationwide on how to present complex and difficult histories in ways that engage the public.
My contributions included essays and presentations on LGBTQ life in early America and gender-based violence, offering historical context to help park staff address these topics with nuance. That work has now apparently been erased.
My professional organizations, including the
and the
, have spoken out against these developments. Their statements highlight the historical significance of these changes and the urgent need for vigilance in protecting the integrity of historical scholarship.
I am deeply worried about the future of history as a profession. Graduate programs are
, funding is disappearing and the next generation of historians is being undermined.
A government that funds historical research serves all of us; without it, we are left at the mercy of political operatives, pundits and fiction writers who reshape history to fit their own agendas.
Last week, the administration declared through an executive order, “
,” that the vice president would be overseeing a comprehensive sweep of the content at the Smithsonian museums, one of the world’s premier academic museum institutions.
The purpose of the initiative is to ensure that the content is acceptable to the government. The order made specific mention of unacceptable content on display at the Museum of African American History and Culture and included a prohibition for the Women’s History Museum against the inclusion of transgender women.
As a historian of America’s founding, I am acutely aware of what lies ahead as the country approaches the 250th anniversary of its independence. This anniversary will likely be politicized to an extent unseen since the post-Civil War period, when revisionist narratives about enslavement gained traction in a nationwide propaganda campaign.
I recall when Trump’s
and the proposed “
” were announced, and I expect these ideas to resurface in an attempt to frame history in ways dictated by politicians rather than scholars. We should not turn away from our own histories or overlay a sanitized, artificial version of the past that aligns with present-day political agendas.
History is meant to be debated and revised. Professional historians engage in rigorous discussions within scholarly frameworks that rely on evidence and interpretation. Censoring content for political reasons, confusing monuments with actual history and treating opinions as facts will only lead us further into misinformation and mythmaking.
History also offers perspective. “This too shall pass” is a lesson many of us have heard since childhood. This does not mean we should sit idly by and wait for this period to pass. Rather, understanding that we are part of an ongoing historical narrative should both humble and empower us. We are all agents of historical change, and the future is unwritten.
History helps us imagine new possibilities — alternative ways of structuring society, radically different ways that previous generations lived and inspiring moments of resilience and transformation. It can be a source of motivation and vision.
However, we cannot change the past, nor should we try to erase or distort it. A nation that denies its rich and diverse histories makes itself weaker, not stronger.
The work of historians is essential, not only for understanding where we have been but also for charting a path forward that is informed, inclusive and true.
Thomas A. Foster is a professor of history at Howard University. His most recent book is “Rethinking Rufus: Sexual Violations of Enslaved Men.”
by | Apr 2, 2025 | The Hill
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) will hold his weekly press conference Wednesday morning as his GOP colleagues in the Senate
President Trump’s
.
Jeffries joined fellow House Democrats Tuesday to rail against the Trump administration’s
and social programs such as Social Security and Medicaid.
Later Tuesday, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) announced
for the week after a
led nine GOP lawmakers to side with Democrats
to block the measure.
The press conference is scheduled to begin at 10:45 a.m. EDT.
Watch the live video above.
by | Apr 2, 2025 | The Hill
Google announced on Tuesday Gmail users will soon be able to send and receive encrypted emails without a third-party provider.
The new process will allow Gmail users to send end-to-end encrypted messages to “any user on any email inbox with just a few clicks,” Google
Tuesday.
A beta version of the feature was launched on Tuesday allowing Gmail users within the same organization to send the encrypted emails. Over the next few weeks, users will be able to send end-to-end encrypted messages to any Gmail inbox and eventually to any email inbox later this year.
The feature is expected to significantly simplify the complex end-to-end encryption process Gmail previously offered. Under the old system, IT administrators had to implement Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) for emails containing highly-sensitive information.
Google pointed out few organizations have the resources to implement S/MIME and even if they do, users had to go through a lengthy process to determine if they have the correct configuration and exchange certificates before the emails can be sent.
“This often results in frustration and the inability to send encrypted emails,” the blog post wrote, adding, “We think there should be a simpler and more efficient way.”
Under the new system, users will be able to send encrypted messages regardless of who they are being sent to. It will no longer require the users to exchange certificates or use custom software.
by | Apr 2, 2025 | The Hill
President Trump’s long promised day of reciprocal tariffs has arrived, with a Rose Garden event to announce them set for Wednesday afternoon.
“It’s liberation day in America,” Trump posted in all caps to his Truth Social platform around 7 a.m.
Also early Wednesday, the
former Senate GOP Leader
(R-Ky.) and other Republicans he’s labeled “disloyal” in the upper chamber to vote against Democrats’ resolution to bar his emergency declaration to
on Canada.
Meanwhile, Republicans were handed mixed results in Tuesday’s elections. They kept both open Florida House seats in their control, though by diminished margins from their wins in those districts just five months ago.
In Wisconsin, liberal Supreme Court candidate Susan Crawford bested her conservative opponent by 10 points. Elon Musk had campaigned for Brad Schimel in the state on Sunday.
Trump and Musk, however,
Wisconsin’s passage of a voter ID ballot measure. Musk
of the ballot measure “the most important thing” in a post on social platform early Wednesday.
The Senate is in session on Wednesday; the House holds hearings but canceled votes until next week.
Follow along here all day for updates on this news and more.
by | Apr 2, 2025 | The Hill
They’re calling it “Liberation Day.” But unless your idea of freedom involves paying more for everything from cars to cocktails, you might want to hold the champagne. Because today, President Trump is celebrating his latest economic brainchild: new tariffs on most imported goods.
Now, I know Trump’s not big on reading, or history, or, you know, “thinking.” But this isn’t some innovative new radical idea he just cooked up at Mar-a-Lago. No, serious people (see
in 1930) have tried this before.
And guess what? It doesn’t work. It’s the economic equivalent of trying to cure a headache with a hammer.
The sainted Ronald Reagan
. And Trump himself acknowledges it might cause a “disturbance” and says he “
” if car prices increase. Which, on one hand, is refreshingly honest. On the other hand, it’s a little unsettling to hear this from a guy whose 2024 campaign sales pitch hinged on lowering prices.
So why is he doing this? Well, let’s start with the kindest explanation — one that assumes he is neither scheming nor lying, just genuinely misguided and mistaken.
Maybe, just maybe, Trump truly believes tariffs are an unmitigated good. He’s certainly been talking about them for decades, in that way certain old men get fixated on ideas that were debunked long before they were born. He sees the world as a rigged, zero-sum game, where America (and more importantly, Trump) is always getting fleeced. The only solution is to hit back — hard, indiscriminately and preferably with something that fits on a bumper sticker.
If you buy into Trump’s victimhood logic — and you shouldn’t — then maybe you believe there will be some initial suffering, some “pain” before the “gain,” as one of his minions put it.
And then what? Factories magically reappear in Ohio? American manufacturing rises from the dead like some sort of blue-collar phoenix? American kids can suddenly climb the rope in gym class and perform five pull ups?
Never mind that companies spent decades building a global supply chain because it was cheaper and more efficient (see David Ricardo’s
, circa 1817). Never mind that even if you could unwind that elaborate system, it would take decades — longer than Trump will be alive, and certainly longer than he plans to pay attention.
And in the meantime, American consumers, who are already gasping from inflation, get smacked with higher prices.
Now, if Trump actually cared about national security — and that’s a big “if” — there might be a plausible argument to be made here. Maybe the idea is to make America less dependent on foreign supply chains, especially from countries like China (and not, say, Canada). Remember when we couldn’t get enough masks during COVID? That was fun.
But if that’s the goal, wouldn’t a competent leader go on TV, look the country in the eye and say, “Listen, folks. This is going to hurt in the short term, but here’s why your sacrifice matters”?
Instead, all we get are vague platitudes, the usual “tough talk,” and press flacks and right-wing talking heads constantly assuring us that “the president has been very clear.”
Spoiler: He hasn’t. He never is. His entire communication strategy is to blurt out something inflammatory and let everyone else scramble to impose meaning on it (which he will then contradict).
Which brings us to the less-generous interpretations. Maybe this isn’t about fixing the economy at all. Maybe it’s about power: the raw, transactional, kingmaker kind. The ability to impose tariffs at will lets Trump dictate winners and losers, punish or reward entire industries and nations, shake down CEOs and generally feel like the most important man in the room.
Or maybe it’s about money. Not for you, of course. For the billionaires. The ones who see economic crises as buying opportunities. The ones who made a killing off the 2008 crash and the COVID crisis. When everything is burning, they swoop in and pick through the wreckage for bargains. And wouldn’t it be extremely convenient to know exactly when that wreckage was coming?
So here we are. The best-case scenario is that Trump is utterly misguided. The worst-case scenario is that it’s all a con job. And the most likely scenario? Some combination of the two.
Either way, the result is the same: You pay more, he gets more power and nothing actually gets better.
In other words, just another day in the Trump administration.
is a columnist, podcaster and author of the books “
” and “
.”
by dap | Apr 2, 2025 | Mediate, The Hill
Former President Barack Obama “did not have faith” that Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris could defeat Donald Trump in the 2024 election and actively “worked behind the scenes” to try and set up a “mini-primary” after then-President Joe Biden dropped out of the race, a new book claims.
The book, FIGHT: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House, details the chaos behind the Democratic Party’s scramble to replace Biden, offering the
that Obama did not want Harris to run.
While Obama eventually endorsed Harris five days after Biden handed her the reins — the reporting paints a picture of deep skepticism at the very
.
NBC political reporter Jonathan Allen, who co-authored the book with The Hill senior correspondent Amie Parnes, told MSNBC’s Morning Joe on Tuesday that sources told them Obama “didn’t think that she was the best choice for Democrats” and lobbied for an open convention instead.
So President Obama absolutely did not think that Joe Biden should continue, according to our sources close to President Obama. And he also didn’t want Kamala Harris to be the replacement for Biden. He didn’t think that she was the best choice for Democrats. And he worked really behind the scenes for a long time to try to have a mini primary or an open convention or mini primary leading to an open convention. He did not have faith in her ability to win the election. So and as it turned out, she didn’t win, but he was really working against her.
In one moment. He had set up a phone call with congressman [Jim] Clyburn from South Carolina on the day that Joe Biden handed off the baton to Kamala Harris, and Obama had set up a call with Clyburn for like 5:30 that afternoon. And Clyburn thought to himself, ‘this guy is going to try to rope me into the open convention thing. I better get my endorsement of Harris out there fast.’ So this is a short conversation and when Harris talked to Obama on the day that Biden handed off to her, Obama was unwilling to give his endorsement then.
Watch above via MSNBC.
The post
first appeared on
.
by | Apr 2, 2025 | The Hill
President Trump has an unlikely foe in his efforts to target Big Law firms: Paul Clement.
Clement is a conservative legal heavyweight who served as solicitor general in President George W. Bush’s administration and has argued more than 100 cases before the Supreme Court. He has notched major conservative victories at the court, including expanding the Second Amendment, ending deference to federal agencies and enabling a high school football coach to pray on the field with students.
Now, Clement is taking on WilmerHale as a client as it sues the president over his executive order restricting the firm’s attorneys’ security clearances and access to federal buildings.
“The Order is not only a threat to WilmerHale, but inimical to our Nation’s constitutional order and the rule of law,” Clement wrote in court filings.
It’s an interesting position for Clement, who twice resigned from Big Law firms to keep representing conservative positions.
In 2011, Clement left King & Spalding when it withdrew from representing the House of Representatives in defending the Defense of Marriage Act. And years later, he resigned from Kirland & Ellis after it announced it would no longer handle cases implicating the Second Amendment.
“It’s especially admirable of Paul Clement to be standing up for BigLaw when BigLaw didn’t have the courage to stand up for him,” Ed Whelan, a noted conservative legal commentator and friend of Clement, wrote on X.
As Trump began targeting firms, questions ran abound about who would represent them and risk placing themselves in the president’s crossfire.
Cooley LLP, a Silicon Valley-based firm that also frequently collaborates with the American Civil Liberties Union, is representing Jenner & Block.
Williams & Connolly, another elite law firm known for its aggressive fights against the federal government, represents Perkins Coie.
And now Clement & Murphy represents WilmerHale, providing the firm with strong conservative bonafides in its fight.
“It probably is true, I think, WilmerHale has more self-identified liberal partners than conservative partners,” Seth Waxman, who leads the firm’s Supreme Court practice, said at a 2022 Federalist Society panel event.
Also on the panel? Clement.
“Big law firms are becoming increasingly woke because some of their clients are becoming increasingly woke,” Clement said.
But he later cautioned, “I’m not I’m not begrudging anyone, I’m just trying to point out that we have a problem here, and the reason I think we have a problem here is because I think the adversarial system depends on having the best possible representation from sort of both sides of the V.”
You’re reading The Gavel, The Hill’s weekly look at the courts from Ella Lee and Zach Schonfeld. If you like what you’ve read so far, you can follow us on social media for updates or send us news tips via email or Signal (we’ll keep you anonymous!).
X:
,
// Email:
,
// Signal:
,
In Focus
The legal movement’s newest influencers: Dem AGs
Court proceedings might often unfold behind closed doors, but the Democratic attorneys general challenging President Trump’s expansive agenda want to bring their work to your feed.
Dem AGs are turning to new media to mount their resistance to Trump 2.0, using untraditional means to win in the court of public opinion as they fight legal battles in courtrooms across the country.
“This is an opportunity for us to ensure that the federal government is held to account when they violate the rights of our respective states and the residents of our states,” Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel told The Gavel in an interview, citing the burst of lawsuits brought by attorneys general nationwide.
“We just thought it was more important than ever to make sure that people are understanding, like, ‘What does an attorney general even do?’”
So, what does an attorney general do? Start a podcast, of course.
Earlier this year, Nessel and Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes launched a podcast together called “Pantsuits and Lawsuits,” where they dissect key legal-political battles and explain their roles as the first line of defense against a president who also enjoys party control in both chambers of Congress, leaving liberal legislators with few tools to fight back.
Branching out on messaging has become a “significant conversation” among Dem AGs, Nessel said, which includes elevating Democratic voices in the podcasting world, dominated by conservative household names like Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson and fratty creators like Joe Rogan and Theo Von, who lent Trump a hand come election season.
“If you’re not meeting people where they are, then you’re not going to get your viewpoints across,” Mayes said in an interview with The Gavel. “We, in general, need to do a better job of creating our own content, but also not being afraid to go on conservative podcasts.
“I personally would love to go on Theo Von,” she added. “A message to Theo Von: if you want me to come on, just let me know.”
(And, Theo, if you’re reading this — shout out The Gavel, while you’re at it, too.)
The shift toward new media comes after a distinctly digital presidential election.
Trump’s coalition of right-wing influencers and podcast bros helped serve up his populist agenda to new, like-minded demographics, while former Vice President Harris’s adaptation of popstar CharliXCX’s “brat” branding and online memes gave Democrats a fighting chance after President Biden’s campaign dramatically faltered.
Democrats have
to harness the enthusiasm of younger audiences, who
but view the party as an unreliable ally on progressive demands. The Democratic attorneys general’s online efforts come as national Democrats
their digital strategy, taking lessons
and experimenting with new content – sometimes successfully, sometimes not.
We could talk about this forever — and lucky for you, reader, we did!
.
So Many Emergencies
The Supreme Court’s emergency docket is jam-packed with the requests from the Trump administration to lift lower judge’s injunctions blocking various executive orders and policies.
Unlike merits cases, these emergency applications are handled “on the papers,” meaning the court rules once each side gets to stake out their position in writing.
Here’s a look at where each stands:
Birthright citizenship: Filed: March 13; Plaintiffs’ responses due: April 4, 4 p.m. EDT
The administration is asking to narrow three nationwide injunctions (upheld by the 1st, 9th and 4th Circuits) blocking Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order. The Justice Department wants the injunctions to only cover the plaintiffs and allow officials to enforce Trump’s order otherwise.
Probationary employees: Filed: March 24; Plaintiffs’ response due: April 3, 12 p.m. EDT
The administration is asking to lift a San Francisco-based district judge’s injunction (upheld by the 9th Circuit) ordering more than 16,000 fired probationary employees at six federal agencies to be reinstated. If the request succeeds, the employees would be terminated once again.
Teacher grants: Filed: March 26; Plaintiffs’ response due: Already filed on March 28
The administration wants to wipe a Boston-based district judge’s temporary restraining order enabling eight Democratic-led states to draw down $65 million under federal teacher development grant programs the administration froze as part of its diversity, equity and inclusion crackdown.
Alien Enemies Act: Filed: March 28; Plaintiffs’ response due: No deadline set yet
The administration wants to lift a series of orders issued by a Washington, D.C.-based district judge blocking Trump from invoking the Alien Enemies Act, a rarely used, wartime law, to swiftly deport alleged Venezuelan gang members.
Chamber of Silence
The federal judiciary Monday released the long-awaited results of a 2023 workplace survey sent to all nearly 28,000 judiciary employees. Half responded.
The survey contained a headline-grabbing statistic that 8.3 percent of respondents reported experiencing harassment, discrimination or abusive conduct.
But the judges involved in managing the survey weren’t too concerned with that number, emphasizing to reporters that it is favorable compared to similar surveys conducted by the other two branches.
“We were also gratified to learn that our employees, and something that we as judiciary leaders have long believed that for our employees, wrongful conduct is not pervasive in our workplaces,” Senior U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson, an appointee of the younger Bush, told reporters.
Instead, the Federal Judiciary Workplace Conduct Working Group was more worried about another stat: Only 42 percent of respondents agreed that employees are willing or very willing to report wrongful conduct.
“We want to see a much higher number of people that feel confident in reporting and also in using the procedures,” Robinson said.
“The reluctance to report is a very strong barrier,” said Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Margaret McKeown, an appointee of former President Clinton and another member of the working group.
Petitions Pile
A convicted serial killer’s petition has been relisted for the first time.
David Villarreal, who was convicted of torturing and killing five gay men and is suspected of killing others, argues his trial judge violated his Sixth Amendment right.
The judge prohibited Villarreal from discussing his ongoing testimony with his counsel while the court was in a 24-hour recess.
In 1976, the Supreme Court ruled in Geders v. United States that a judge can’t bar a defendant from conferring with their counsel in the middle of their testimony during an overnight recess.
But in Villarreal’s case, the judge permitted him to meet with his attorney about other subjects, so long as they did not discuss his testimony. He appealed after the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas rejected his argument.
“Prohibiting counsel from discussing the defendant’s testimony during an overnight recess is tantamount to preventing counsel from doing his or her job,” Villarreal’s lawyers at the UCLA School of Law Supreme Court Clinic wrote in his petition.
The court has also relisted again six other petitions we’ve discussed in previous editions of The Gavel. But we want to return to one petition that has been relisted again. And again. And again.
Up for its 11th consecutive conference is Apache’s Stronghold’s attempt to stop a sacred Apache religious site from being turned into a copper mine.
So what’s going on? Here’s how things have played out for previous petitions listed so many times:
- Summary opinion: The court is able to issue its final decision in a case without hearing oral arguments, known as a “summary opinion.” The justices did so in November,
in a case that tested the limits of the death penalty and the intellectually disabled. Smith’s petition had been listed more than 20 times.
- Strategic delay: Last term, a similar mystery played out as the court listed death row inmate Richard Glossip’s petition more than 10 times. The court ultimately granted the case just after the deadline passed for a case to be granted in time to be considered that term. Instead, Glossip’s case was put on this term’s docket, and a
- Written dissent: In a pair of cases last term challenging New York City’s rent control that hit a double-digit number of listings, Thomas ultimately issued a solo dissent. It remains unclear why the court held onto the case for so long; Thomas’s d
We’re not sure what’s going on this time, but it’s surely one two watch as the plaintiffs say the plan substantially burdens their religious exercise, violating both the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
(Remember Clement? His firm is part of the legal team, which is led by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty)
In/Out: The Order List
IN: Nothing
The Supreme Court took up no new cases at its recent weekly conference
OUT: Death row case
The court declined to take up Missouri death row inmate Lance Shockley’s petition seeking a legal pathway to claim his lawyer was ineffective.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, both members of the court’s liberal minority,
. It’s the latest example of how the duo dissent in death row and criminal defense cases more regularly compared to some of their colleagues.
“Unfortunately, the Court leaves the issue for another day,” Sotomayor wrote.
A jury convicted Shockley for murdering a police officer who was investigating his role in a drunken driving incident that killed his sister-in law’s fiancé. Shockley’s lawyer did not discover until after the verdict that the jury foreperson had authored a fictionalized autobiography describing the “brutal and graphic revenge murder of a defendant who killed the protagonist’s wife in a drunken-driving accident” and handed it out to several jurors during deliberations.
Shockley argues he had ineffective counsel because his attorney was given an opportunity to question jurors during a mistrial hearing but did not call any witnesses.
To advance his claims, Shockley filed a federal habeas petition, which challenges the legality of his detention, but it was rejected by a district judge.
Federal law provides that prisoners can only appeal such a denial if “a circuit justice or judge” issues a certificate of appealability. When Shockley asked the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel to do so, it refused in a 2-1 decision.
In some circuits, Shockley would’ve prevailed, since “a” judge agreed. But the 8th Circuit uses a stricter standard that requires a majority. That test drew criticism from the two liberal justices Monday, who called it an “entrenched Circuit split over an important question of statutory interpretation.”
“This case exemplifies the problems with the Eighth Circuit’s contrary approach,” Sotomayor wrote.
But without two other colleagues, they fell short of the four votes required to take up Shockley’s claims.
On the docket
Don’t be surprised if additional hearings are scheduled throughout the week. But here’s what we’re watching for now:
Today
- The Supreme Court will announce opinions.
- The justices will also hear oral arguments over whether Medicaid recipients have the right to choose a specific provider.
- U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who also oversaw Trump’s now-dismissed federal election subversion criminal case, will hold a preliminary injunction hearing in Climate United Fund’s lawsuit over its Environmental Protection Agency grant funding that Citibank has refused to disburse.
- Another federal judge in Washington, D.C. will hold a hearing for injunctive relief in two lawsuits challenging the Trump administration and DOGE’s takeover of the Inter-American Foundation.
Thursday
- Hayden Haynes, chief of staff to House Speaker Mike Johnson, is set to be arraigned in D.C. Superior Court on a DUI charge.
- A federal judge in Rhode Island is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a lawsuit challenging the administration’s freeze in funding for the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Act.
- U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, the latest subject of Trump’s ire, is set to hold a hearing over whether the Trump administration violated his temporary restraining order.
Friday
- A D.C. federal judge is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a lawsuit challenging the recission of a DHS memo that prohibited ICE raids in places of worship.
Monday
- The Supreme Court will announce orders.
Tuesday
- A federal judge in Maryland will hold two days of hearings on pending motions in the criminal case of a California man accused of attempting to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh at his home.
- A D.C. federal judge will hold a preliminary injunction hearing on whether to block a Trump administration rule that requires millions of noncitizens to submit biometric information and at all times carry proof they have done so.
What we’re reading
- The New York Times’s Adam Liptak:
- The Guardian’s Sam Levine:
- WHYY’s Carmen Russel-Sluchansky:
- Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) in the Wall Street Journal:
- Financial Times’s Sujeet Indap:
- Harvard Law Bulletin:
We’ll be back next Wednesday with additional reporting and insights. In the meantime, keep up
.
Questions? Tips? Love letters, hate mail, pet pics?
Email us here:
and
. Securely reach us on Signal here:
and
by | Apr 2, 2025 | The Hill
In Idaho, we don’t shy away from tough questions. Right now, we’re asking one that’s overdue: Is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — “SNAP,” or “food stamps” as it was once known — still fulfilling its original purpose?
Our legislature has just passed
that would direct Idaho’s Department of Health and Welfare to seek a federal waiver to forbid food stamps from being used to buy soda and candy. This isn’t about soft drinks or sweets — it’s about the integrity of a public program and whether it’s still delivering on its mission.
Food stamps exist to help low-income families put meals on the table. That is a goal we all stand behind. But its purpose goes beyond just filling grocery bags.
some six decades ago states clearly that the program is designed “to alleviate … hunger and malnutrition” by enabling families to afford a more nutritious diet. That’s not an optional benchmark — it’s the standard.
So, we need to ask: Are we meeting it? If we are, that’s good news. If not, we have a responsibility to address it.
This isn’t about penalizing anyone. It’s about accountability. Like any taxpayer-funded program, food stamps should be judged by their outcomes. If they’re straying from their intent, we can’t just look the other way — we have to fix it. That’s basic stewardship.
The data tell the whole story. Obesity has tripled since the 1960s. More than 40 percent of adults and one in five children are obese. One in three adults is diabetic or prediabetic. And sugary drinks alone account for nearly $4 billion in annual food stamp spending.
These aren’t criticisms of the folks using food stamps. Rather, they are signals about the program’s direction. If 20 percent of food stamp dollars are going toward soda, candy and snack foods, are we truly advancing the goal of a “more nutritious diet”?
That’s a question every legislator must confront. House Bill 109 is Idaho’s attempt to do just that and to spark a broader conversation.
The bill is straightforward. It defines soda and candy using our existing tax code. It then directs our health department to request a U.S. Department of Agriculture waiver excluding those items from food stamp purchases and mandates that we keep asking annually until it’s approved.
Critics have called this overreach. But food stamps already exclude some items — for example, alcohol, tobacco and hot prepared meals. Programs like the Women, Infants and Children program already prohibit soda and candy entirely, prioritizing nutrition over convenience.
So setting limits is not novel or radical. It is already common in such programs, and in this case it is consistent with the program’s roots.
This should be a routine discussion. When a public program drifts from its initial aims, we owe it to those it serves — and to those who fund it — to ask why. Yet Washington has been dodging this debate for years. Lobbyists for Big Soda and Big Sugar have stifled reform, and even under administrations pledging change, the federal Department of Agriculture has refused to budge. Maine’s waiver request, for instance,
.
That is why states like Idaho are now taking the lead.
This idea isn’t on the fringes anymore. A dozen states are exploring similar measures. Bipartisan voices in Congress are raising the issue of nutrition reform. Figures such as Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are pressing for change from outside the system. But that momentum wouldn’t exist if not for states driving it.
Idaho has a chance to set an example — not just by tweaking food stamps, but by realigning them with their founding purpose.
We’re not here to dictate anyone’s grocery list. We are here to ensure that a major federal program stays true to its goal of fighting hunger and malnutrition through better nutrition.
If Congress meant what it wrote in the law — if SNAP’s mission is genuinely about healthier diets — then we should measure it against that standard. And if we’re falling short, we should act. House Bill 109 is one practical step toward that accountability.
Government programs, like the people they serve, thrive when they stay focused. It’s time we made sure SNAP stays focused, too.
Jordan Redman, a Republican, represents Idaho’s third legislative district in the state House of Representatives.
