Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Democracy regains some order in the courts but Trump vows to press on

President Donald Trump

President Trump tweeted he will intervene in the last-minute Texas lawsuit seeking to overturn results in four battlegrounds won by Joe Biden.

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

Two extreme long-shot lawsuits are still sitting at the Supreme Court, a day after it waited just minutes before dismissing the first challenge to the presidential election it looked at.

There was not a word of dissent, from President Trump's three nominees or any of the other justices, as the court declined Tuesday evening to consider a bid by Pennsylvania Republicans to overturn Joe Biden's clear victory in the state.

Hours later came the deadline set by federal law for states to lock down their election results, and their assignments to the Electoral College, and make them almost totally immune from further challenges. While that essentially locked in Biden's election as the 46th president, it did nothing to stop Trump from continuing to falsely claim he won another term — or to prevent almost all his fellow Republicans in authority from appeasing the unprecedented effort by a president to delegitimize democracy with baseless conspiracy theories about voting fraud.


All but one state appears to have entered the so-called safe harbor on time, which means Congress must accept the electoral votes cast next week when they arrive for tabulating at a rare joint meeting of the House and Senate, to be held Jan 6.

The exception is Wisconsin, which has seen as much election turmoil as any since the pandemic upended voting and spurred a wave of litigation starting this spring. The state has been delayed because lawsuits by Trump allies, in several ways similar to the one from Pennsylvania that got spurned Tuesday, are on appeal to the Supreme Court and in the state courts.

The other suit before the justices, filed only Tuesday, is a claim by Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton of Texas that the state's citizens' political rights were unconstitutionally limited when rules for mail-in voting were relaxed in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and two other battlegrounds Biden carried, Georgia and Michigan. All of them have Republican-majority legislatures. They account for 62 of the 306 electoral votes Biden can legitimately claim, but Texas says all those votes should be disallowed.

The high court has the power, but is not required, to decide lawsuits one state brings against another.

Attorneys general from the defendant states dismissed the Texas case with an array of colorful language.

But Trump on Wednesday said he would put lawyers to work arguing the Texas side of the case, declaring on Twitter: "We will be INTERVENING in the Texas (plus many other states) case. This is the big one. Our Country needs a victory!"

He offered no other details, such as whether he would ask his campaign attorneys or the Justice Department to get involved.

A Wisconsin appeals court will hear arguments Thursday on a long-odds suit alleging the state Elections Board permitted the finalizing of election results despite claims of irregularities in Milwaukee and Madison — and that as a result the statewide result should be tossed and the GOP Legislature should get to pick the electors.

Missing the safe harbor deadline does not nullify Wisconsin's 10 electoral votes, but it will make them slightly more vulnerable in Congress, where GOP Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama says he will mount a challenge he has not detailed. Still, it's essentially inconceivable the Democratic-majority House would vote to throw out any slate of Biden electors.

Pennsylvania's 20 electoral votes, which Biden carried by 80,000 votes, were locked down Tuesday by a single, 18-word sentence ending with the word "denied."

The appeal, by Republicans led by Rep. Mike Kelly, argued that a state law enacted last year (with just one GOP "no" vote) allowing all Pennsylavnians to vote by mail without an excuse violated the state Constitution — and so all 2.5 million mailed ballots, mainly cast by Democrats, should be thrown out. Gov. Tom Wolf, a Democrat, argued in his brief to the justices that their getting involved in such a purely state matter would be "one of the most dramatic, disruptive invocations of judicial power in the history of the republic."

Meanwhile, almost all GOP members of Congress are declining to commit themselves publicly to the correct answer to the question: Has Biden won the election? Some say they may do so after the electors meet across the country Monday, while others say they will wait until Congress counts their votes in four weeks.

Meantime, their refusal to agree on the facts is furthering the undermining of voter confidence and putting a cloud over the peaceful transfer of power and the onset of the Biden administration.

Read More

ICE Policy Challenged in Court for Blocking Congressional Oversight of Detention Centers

Federal agents guard outside of a federal building and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center in downtown Los Angeles as demonstrations continue after a series of immigration raids began last Friday on June 13, 2025, in Los Angeles, California.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

ICE Policy Challenged in Court for Blocking Congressional Oversight of Detention Centers

In a constitutional democracy, congressional oversight is not a courtesy—it is a cornerstone of the separation of powers enshrined in our founding documents.

Lawyers Defending American Democracy (LDAD) has filed an amicus brief in Neguse v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, arguing that ICE’s policy restricting unannounced visits by members of Congress “directly violates federal law.” Twelve lawmakers brought this suit to challenge ICE’s new requirement that elected officials provide seven days’ notice before visiting detention facilities—an edict that undermines transparency and shields executive agencies from scrutiny.

Keep ReadingShow less
How Billionaires Are Rewriting History and Democracy
Getty Images, SvetaZi

How Billionaires Are Rewriting History and Democracy

In the Gilded Age of the millionaire, wealth signified ownership. The titans of old built railroads, monopolized oil, and bought their indulgences in yachts, mansions, and eventually, sports teams. A franchise was the crown jewel: a visible, glamorous token of success. But that era is over. Today’s billionaires, those who tower, not with millions but with unimaginable billions, find sports teams and other baubles beneath them. For this new aristocracy, the true prize is authorship of History (with a capital “H”) itself.

Once you pass a certain threshold of wealth, it seems, mere possessions no longer thrill. At the billionaire’s scale, you wake up in the morning searching for something grand enough to justify your own existence, something commensurate with your supposed singularly historical importance. To buy a team or build another mansion is routine, played, trite. To reshape the very framework of society—now that is a worthy stimulus. That is the game. And increasingly, billionaires are playing it.

Keep ReadingShow less
an illustration of pople walking with brief cases from a UFO.

Echoing Serling’s To Serve Man, Edward Saltzberg reveals how modern authoritarianism uses language, fear, and media control to erode democracy from within.

To Serve Man—2025 Edition

In March 1962, Rod Serling introduced a Twilight Zone episode that feels prophetic today. "To Serve Man" begins with nine-foot aliens landing at the United Nations, promising to end war and famine. They offer boundless energy and peace. Unlike the menacing invaders of 1950s sci-fi, these Kanamits present themselves as benefactors with serene expressions and soothing words.

The promises appear real. Wars cease. Deserts bloom into gardens. Crop yields soar. People line up eagerly at the Kanamits' embassy to volunteer for trips to the aliens' paradise planet—a world without hunger, conflict, or want.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person in a military uniform holding a gavel.

As the Trump administration redefines “Warrior Ethos,” U.S. military leaders face a crucial test: defend democracy or follow unlawful orders.

Getty Images, Liudmila Chernetska

Warrior Ethos or Rule of Law? The Military’s Defining Moment

Does Secretary Hegseth’s extraordinary summoning of hundreds of U.S. command generals and admirals to a Sept. 30 meeting and the repugnant reinstatement of Medals of Honor to 20 participants in the infamous 1890 Wounded Knee Massacre—in which 300 Lakota Sioux men, women, and children were killed—foreshadow the imposition of a twisted approach to U.S. “Warrior Ethos”? Should military leaders accept an ethos that ignores the rule of law?

Active duty and retired officers must trumpet a resounding: NO, that is not acceptable. And, we civilians must realize the stakes and join them.

Keep ReadingShow less