DEMOCRACY WATCHA Loophole That Would Swallow the Constitution | Regulated Democracy and Regulated Speech | At the Mercy of Presidential Self-Restraint, and more

At the Mercy of Presidential Self-Restraint  (Jack B. Greenberg and John A. Dearborn, Lawfare)
Trump’s spree of firings exposes a dilemma for Congress: a reliance on presidents to respect the independence of executive branch officials.

A Startling Admission from a G.O.P. Senator: ‘We Are All Afraid’  (Annie Karni, New York Times)
Lisa Murkowski, a longtime senator from Alaska and an independent voice in an increasingly tribal party, has been the rare Republican on Capitol Hill willing to criticize President Trump’s actions.

US Citizens Don’t Have First Amendment Rights If Noncitizens Don’t  (David J. Bier, CATO)
ntil the Supreme Court reaffirms that the First Amendment protects noncitizens in the United States from banishment for their speech—and until President Trump obeys the Supreme Court—we do not live in a free country.

Regulated Democracy and Regulated Speech  (Daphne Keller, Just Security)
Lawmakers are right to worry about platforms’ power over public discourse and democracy. But legislative responses too often seek to empower the government to set new rules for online speech. Courts have rightly held that such laws violate the First Amendment. Attempted work-arounds like using Federal Communications Commission (FCC) authority or statutory immunities to target “lawful but awful” speech have similar problems.
For some lawmakers, this constitutional barrier is a bug. For the rest of us, it is decidedly a feature. The First Amendment is meant to protect us from the short-sightedness about state power that afflicted many Democrats during the Biden administration, and Republicans in this one.

With Harvard Threat, Trump Tries to Bend the I.R.S. to His Will  (Andrew DuehrenAlan Rappeport and Russ Buettner, New York Times)
Since the post-Nixon era, the Internal Revenue Service has had a degree of independence from the White House. President Trump is seeking to change that.

Dual Orders from Judges Edge Courts Closer to Confrontation with White House  (Alan Feuer, New York Times)
The threat of investigations into whether the administration violated the judges’ orders comes as President Trump and his advisers are increasingly butting heads with the courts.

Trump’s Deportation of Maryland Man Divides Conservatives  (Naftali Bendavid, Washington Post)
The White House argues that Kilmar Abrego García is a bad man. Some conservatives say that should not matter.

A Loophole That Would Swallow the Constitution  (Jonathan Chait, The Atlantic)
If Donald Trump can disappear people to El Salvador without due process, he can do anything.

Yes, Elon Musk’s Vote-Buying Is Against the Law  (Andy Craig, The Bulwark)
People have gone to prison for comparable schemes.

One Justice Department Office Is Key to Trump’s Authoritarian Plans  (Jonathan Blanks, The Bulwark)
The Civil Rights Division used to be the “crown jewel” of the department. Not anymore.

Universities in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union Thought Giving In to Government Demands Would Save Their Independence  (Iveta Silova, The Conversation)
As a scholar of comparative and international education, I study how academic institutions respond to authoritarian pressure – across political systems, cultural contexts and historical moments. While some universities may believe that compliance with the administration will protect their funding and independence, a few historical parallels suggest otherwise.
When universities start regulating not just what they say but what they teach, support and stand for – driven by fear rather than principle – they are no longer just reacting to political threats, they are internalizing them. And as history has shown, that may mark the beginning of the end of their academic independence.