Trump Presidential Victory Promises
Big Changes to U.S. Legal Framework
Donald Trump's reelection Tuesday is likely to have a broad impact on the laws and regulations of the United States as he pushes a conservative agenda that would include expedited deportations, ending much of the Biden administration's environmental agenda, loosening bank regulations and appointing judges to enforce his policies.
It also is likely to end any further chances of criminal prosecution of the president.
The Dow Jones Industrials average jumped more than 1,300 points on the stock market the first day after the election. At the same time, civil rights advocates are warning against Trump’s prediction as he started his campaign that if he wins the election he would be a “dictator” but only on “Day 1.”
Immigrant rights advocates are asking whether the come-back victory means the civil rights of immigrants will be sidestepped as Trump makes good on his pledge of mass deportations.
Trump has said he would use all available resources to remove illegal immigrants, including the U.S. military and local police. He also said he might withhold federal funds from jurisdictions that resist the effort.
Vice President-elect J.D. Vance said the policy could result in one million deportations per year.
Another daunting issue is whether Trump will follow through on pledges of revenge against his critics who wanted him prosecuted and fined. He faces criminal charges and lawsuits over allegations of election interference in 2020, mishandling classified government documents and allegations of sexual harassment.
At various times during his campaign, Trump has pledged revenge against people he described as “the enemy within.”
He has said his critics “should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military.”
A Supreme Court ruling in July that gives him immunity from liability for his “official acts” as president means anyone who stands in his way would have minimal legal recourse against him.
He even named some of the people who would suffer his wrath. They include Justice Department special prosecutor Jack Smith, former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
Regarding Smith, he said in an interview last month, “I would fire him within two seconds. He'll be one of the first things addressed."
In addition, the Supreme Court ruling means his official acts could include granting himself a pardon from all criminal and civil claims.
Trump already appointed three Supreme Court justices who played crucial roles in overturning the Roe v. Wade abortion rights ruling.
He could have an opportunity to cement his conservative supermajority influence in the Supreme Court if two more justices, Clarence Thomas, 76, or Samuel Alito, 74, retire in the next four years.
Other federal judicial appointments await Trump. Forty-seven federal judicial seats are vacant.
Twenty others are held by judges who recently announced their plans to assume senior status.
A return to his first administration’s environmental policies would mean a quick departure from the Biden administration’s goal of reducing the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions by half by 2030 and making the United States carbon neutral by 2050.
During his first term, Trump appointed administrators to the Environmental Protection Agency who had strong industry ties. They rolled back many emissions regulations on power plants and automobiles.
Trump published a statement on his campaign web site of his environmental policy that said, "Republicans will increase energy production across the board, streamline permitting, and end market-distorting restrictions on oil, natural gas, and coal. We will drill, baby, drill.”
He gave a further explanation of his environmental priorities in his Project 2025, which is a policy agenda for his return to the White House.
It says the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission "should not use environmental issues like climate change as a reason to stop [liquefied natural gas] projects."
The banking industry is looking forward to a Trump administration that looked kindly on its requests for deregulation.
The Biden administration sought to end some bank fees and require a capitalization rate on lending institutions that would ensure they could cover all their debts without failures. One of the controversial regulations capped credit card late payment fees at $8.
The banking industry said the regulations put such a heavy burden on them that it stifled their growth.
Some of the banking industry oversight is done by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It tries to ensure banks, credit unions and other financial institutions do not abuse their mortgage, credit card and student loan services.
Tough regulations promulgated and enforced by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau often led to lawsuits. Trump has traditionally sought a less formal and restrictive strategy to protecting consumers.
Other changes are likely at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, according to the Project 2025 policy goals. The agency protects workers’ rights.
Project 2025 endorses evangelical Christian values in workplace regulation. In one example, employers no longer would be required to avoid discrimination based on job applicants’ sexual orientation or gender identity.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
Attorneys General Ask Congress
To Intervene in Price Gouging
The attorneys general from Maryland and the District of Columbia are asking congressional leaders to take action to prevent price gouging as popular opinion polls show inflation is becoming a major concern of consumers.
Rising grocery prices top their list of complaints. Housing is another one.
“Individual states face heightened challenges when protecting consumers from price gouging when so many product supply chains are nationwide,” says a letter from 16 attorneys general delivered last week to House and Senate leaders.
More than 40 states have laws forbidding price gouging but constitutional limits on their authority mean they cannot enforce them outside their own borders.
The D.C. law says, “It shall be unlawful for any person to charge more than the normal average retail price for any merchandise or service sold during an emergency…"
The Maryland law is weaker. It applies most commonly to drug prices. Price gouging restrictions are enforced in Virginia through its Consumer Protection Act.
The joint letter from the attorneys general says, “A federal price gouging prohibition would provide critical partnership to state enforcement and protect consumers and small businesses alike.”
Price gouging refers to charging customers exorbitant prices for goods or services when extreme circumstances result in high demand and limited supplies. States normally enforce their bans after natural disasters.
Price gouging was an issue in September before two hurricanes hit Florida. Hotel room rates, gasoline and groceries shot up in some places just outside the evacuation zone, according to the Federal Trade Commission.
Supply chain disruptions caused by war in Ukraine and the Middle East are adding to the inflationary trends.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported last month that the price of “food at home” has increased by 21.6 percent since President Joe Biden’s term started in January 2021.
The consumer complaints started during the COVID-19 pandemic.
“Those consumers were angry about retailers jacking up the price of essential goods like household disinfectants,” the attorneys general wrote.
They argue in their letter that national restrictions on price gouging would discourage hoarding and encourage manufacturers to increase production to avoid shortages.
Some Democrats and Republicans in Congress have sought to control consumer prices recently but so far have been unable to reach agreement on legislation.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
Bannon Resumes Conservative Podcast
Hours After Release from Prison
Conservative firebrand Steve Bannon resumed his “War Room” podcasts last week hours after being released from prison.
He was convicted two years ago of contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with a subpoena from the House Select Committee that investigated the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Bannon, 70, who served as a chief executive for Donald Trump’s successful campaign for president in 2016, has remained one of Trump’s staunchest supporters.
He started the podcast playing clips of political commentators Rachel Maddow and Joe Scarborough harshly criticizing Trump.
“Understand something, and this has to be very clear, the Democrats and the radicals you just saw on MSNBC and CNN … they have no intention of giving up power. And this is why it’s so important for this audience, you are the background of this movement.”
He mentioned Trump’s controversial political rally in New York’s Madison Square Garden last month in which some of the speakers made statements with racist and sexist overtones, including one who referred to Puerto Rico as “garbage.”
Bannon said the rhetoric was “fantastic” and “amazing.”
Bannon was the second former White House aide to serve a prison sentence after refusing to answer questions from a congressional panel on whether Trump planned to incite the Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the Capitol. Lawmakers also wanted to question him about whether Trump was trying to seize control of the government.
Peter Navarro, a former trade advisor, was the first Trump appointee to serve jail time. Three others were censured by Congress.
Bannon claimed that he was immune from prosecution under the executive privilege that protects the president and his staff from liability for their official actions.
Prosecutors argued Bannon could not claim executive privilege because he already left the White House when he was subpoenaed by Congress.
After a judge in Washington, D.C., sentenced him, Bannon told reporters outside the courthouse, “There’s not a prison built or a jail built that’ll ever shut me up.”
He claimed to be a political prisoner who was enduring reprisal by former Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
He continued his defiance last week on his podcast when he said, “The four months in federal prison not only didn’t break me, it empowered me. I am more energized and more focused than I’ve ever been in my entire life.”
Bannon renewed his attacks on Pelosi when he said, “She sent me to a federal prison as a political prisoner, to do two things, to make sure that she tried to tamp down the power of this show, right, tamp down the power of the show, and also to break me. Nancy Pelosi, take out your number two pencil and write this down: this show has never been more powerful.”
Bannon is the defendant in another criminal case scheduled for trial in New York in December. He is accused of organizing a nonprofit organization that would use donations to build a wall along the Mexican border but keeping much of the money for himself.
He has pleaded not guilty to money laundering, conspiracy, fraud and other charges.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
D.C. Sued Over Treatment
Of Juvenile Offenders
The District of Columbia government is facing a new lawsuit over its treatment of juvenile offenders.
It accuses the city of violating its own rules by allowing juveniles charged or convicted of crimes to remain incarcerated without rehabilitation services or mental health treatment.
In some cases, juveniles have been kept in detention facilities for as long as a year with no rehabilitation or treatment options despite a D.C. rule requiring the services and appropriate housing in no more than 30 days, according to the plaintiffs.
The lawsuit, filed by the D.C. Public Defender Service and American Civil Liberties Union, says, the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services “utterly fails to meet the duty it owes to children in its custody.”
The lawsuit seeks court oversight of the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services and an independent oversight monitor to review the agency’s treatment of youth.
A main focus of the lawsuit is the city’s 99-bed Youth Services Center at 1000 block of Mt. Olivet Road in Northeast. Juveniles can be held there by court order after a conviction until they are 21 years old. Afterward, they are released into the community.
The facility also houses juveniles awaiting trial or sentencing.
Two residents are the 16-year-old boys named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit. One has been held there since July 29 and the other since Sept. 4.
Despite the 30-day rule for placement, neither of the boys has been relocated to a long-term facility that offers mental health treatment and rehabilitation.
“While at [the Youth Services Center], children are left in restrictive, often overcrowded settings without access to rehabilitative programming and services, at great harm to their mental, emotional, and physical well-being,” the lawsuit says. “Not only are children left with uncertainty as to their future and forced to endure the stressful conditions at [the Youth Services Center] while awaiting placement, but these delays also unlawfully prolong children’s detention, as they extend the overall time that children are held in restrictive settings.”
Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services officials say they have struggled to find the long-term housing and services they are required to offer but often lack the resources.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.
WMATA Sued by Safety Commission
In Dispute Over Worker Safety
The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority is being sued by the agency that oversees safety on the public transit system.
The Washington Metrorail Safety Commission is demanding that WMATA turn over information about its worker safety program, such as its procedure for removing asbestos.
The safety commission said WMATA ignored a subpoena in April requiring information about a variety of worker safety measures. In addition to asbestos, the commission sought data on drug and alcohol testing, maintenance schedules and lead dust hazards detected in work areas.
The safety commission audits WMATA every three years. It is an independent entity operating under an interstate compact to monitor and enforce safety on WMATA's Metrorail system in D.C., Maryland and Virginia.
Before filing the lawsuit, the safety commission issued notices of non-compliance to WMATA after some of its workers allegedly failed to use personal protective equipment. The transit agency also failed to put in safety rails in some of its facilities, the safety commission says.
WMATA officials acknowledge that they have not complied with all the safety commission’s requests for information but only because their demands were “unreasonable.”
They accuse the safety commission of exceeding its authority. They said they plan to challenge the lawsuit.
WMATA first revealed the presence of asbestos in rail cars nine years ago but added that it did not pose a threat to passengers. The transit agency hired a contractor to remove it from 280 rail cars.
At the time, WMATA officials described the asbestos as “an extremely small amount of a non-friable asbestos-containing material within the mechanical area of the rail car.”
The lawsuit filed in D.C. Superior Court is Washington Metrorail Safety Commission v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Case No. 1:24-mc-00144, filed Oct. 31, 2024.
For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.