Federal judge rules DOJ can’t be trusted
When the Justice Department is treated as an untrustworthy adversary, it is no longer defending the Constitution.
In what may be a watershed moment, a Federal judge has determined that Trump’s Department of Justice is not to be trusted with sensitive voter information. Not only could this impact multiple cases in multiple states, but it could also lead to the total erosion of the presumption of regularity.
Citing Trump sycophant and Attorney General of the United States, Pam Bondi’s exhortative letter to the State of Minnesota promising to end the DHS occupation of Minneapolis in exchange for sensitive voter data, a Federal judge has not only declared the longstanding assumption that the United States government was telling the truth when it spoke in court gone, but stated the Executive branch is assuming powers that Congress has never given it, and it may not simply assume.
“Congress knows how to include disclosure provisions, as it did so in both the NVRA and Title III. It did not do so here, and the Court will not play the role of Congress by adding one where it does not exist,” Kasubhai wrote. “There is no separate disclosure provision applicable to the federal government, and the federal government does not enjoy any intrinsic authority to compel disclosure of these records.”
Beyond the motive and legal analysis, the court framed the DOJ’s campaign as a direct threat to the constitutional balance between the states and the federal government.
“Plaintiff’s claims disturb the framework of federalism envisioned and enshrined in our Constitution,” Kasubhai wrote. “Plaintiff’s claims here represent an overreach and misuse of those limited constitutional exceptions designed to ensure decentralized election regulation.”
When the Justice Department is treated as an untrustworthy adversary, it is no longer defending the Constitution. It is testing how much of it can be ignored. Pam Bondi has disgraced her Department.