Sauer Am1st Legal
TRUMP 2.0 SOLICITOR GENERAL
MERRI OK
SEE SCOTUS 4 IMMUNITY
CLERK ALITO
BIG LIE FAKE ELECTORS
fulton fuckery MIZZOU AG NETWORK
SEE BAYER GLYPHOSATE
SHADOW DOCKET END RUN? 2 26
TRUMP COUP MILLER PAXTON
see SIO attack STANFORD INTERNET OBS
On July 4, a federal judge issued an injunction in Missouri v. Biden, barring the federal government from contacting platforms and asking to remove misinformation.
seal team 6 ok
-=-=
CYA?
-=-=
AN 11 26
Former Asst. U.S. Attorney Andrew Weissmann says there are at least three reasons President Donald Trump did not try to deny the midterm election that swept Republicans out of power in a rush of voter wrath. And one of those reasons came from directly inside Trump’s administration.
“In Trump 1.0 there were internal people to the White House and the Department of Justice and the FBI and within the intelligence Community who were pushing back [against Trump’s incursions against democracy in 2021,” Weissmann told Bulwark publisher Sarah Longwell in a Thursday night podcast.
Trump 2.0, he said, is more of a science experiment on what happens when you have only loyalty and incompetence as hiring criteria. But in 1.0, Weissmann said the military and other leaders made clear that they were not willing to do to keep Trump in power.
This year, however, some members of Trump’s legal team were pushing back less overtly, subtly signaling to judges and courts that Trump’s legal filings to intercept democracy had no foundation.
“There were signs of people internally not going along with things,” said Weissmann. “… The solicitor general, when they filed a brief in the Supreme Court on the list of 20,000 [California ballots] to set aside, he obviously didn't have enough clout or power to tell the White House ‘we're not doing that,’ or ‘no, or I'm leaving.’ But when you read the [Solicitor General John Sauer’s brief, I have never read a brief that signals as loudly as it could that this is a bull—— application.”
“It's read the following way: our office has been told that there is this list and we have been told that it is believed to be accurate based on information that, at the time they looked at it, that may support a review,” said Weissmann, between smiles. “I mean, people were joking about it. I'm not sure you could put more caveats into that. That is not how you start a brief. [Sauer’s] basically saying, ‘this is bull——, and I'm forced to do this.”
The internal people not going along with Trump’s schemes to overthrow the 2026 midterms, however, did not include AG Todd Blanche, Trump’s former defense attorney who Trump brought on to run the DOJ.
“Not Todd Blanche. He's all in, in the grossest way,” Weissmann told Longwell, and then added that if there was any official in the second half of Trump’s term worthy of impeachment it was Blanche—who has been serving Trump ever since he failed to protect him from a hush-money conviction over illegal funds paid to a sex-industry worker.
-=-=-
---
D . JOHN SAUER Solicitor General Counsel of Record
HARMEET K. DHILLON Assistant Attorney General HASHIM M. MOOPPAN Deputy Solicitor General JESUS A. OSETE Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General AARON Z. ROPER Assistant to the Solicitor General ANDREW G. BRANIFF
DAVID N. GOLDMAN Attorneys Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 SupremeCtBriefs@usdoj.gov (202) 514-2217
---
---
Bayer ‘Turns Over Every Stone’ to Stiff Roundup Cancer Victims - The American Prospect
*This is the first in a three-part series on Bayer’s crusade for immunity from Roundup-related cancer claims, published in partnership with theCenter for Media and Democracy. Read the second and third parts of the series.
The executive order President Trump signed in February protecting and encouraging the production of glyphosate, the primary ingredient in Roundup, is a major victory for Bayer AG, the German biotech giant that produces the notorious herbicide.
The company has been aggressively implementing its five-point plan to thwart the ability of cancer patients to sue over claims that it failed to warn them about the link between Roundup and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. But Bayer is not resting on its laurels, and is pushing for a more permanent win in the Supreme Court this spring—and eventually in Congress.
By the time Bayer introduced its plan to stem a flood of Roundup-related lawsuits in 2021, the company already owed billions in verdicts and settlements. Pricey verdicts over the carcinogenic product began to pop up around the country after a San Francisco school groundskeeper won a landmark $289-million damages award in the first failure-to-warn trial over Roundup’s link to cancer in August 2018—just two months after Bayer purchased Monsanto, the company that had been making Roundup.
Bayer has mounted an aggressive lobbying, public relations, and litigation campaign to shield the company from tens of thousands of similar lawsuits and protect its multibillion-dollar annual sales of glyphosate-based products—especially Roundup, the most widely used herbicide in the world.
When Bayer’s new CEO Bill Anderson came on board in 2023, he pledged to “contain” the company’s Roundup litigation woes by the end of this year and told shareholders that the company is “turning over every stone” to reach that goal.
Bayer earned $2.9 billion from glyphosate sales last year, according to its March 4 annual earnings report, but payouts for Roundup litigation have put the company in the red for the past three years. Bayer’s earnings report shows $1.3 billion in settlement and court judgment payments in 2025—marking a serious jump from the $528 million the company paid the previous year.
These financial and political factors raise the stakes for Bayer as it prepares to present oral arguments before the Supreme Court in a case called Monsanto Company v. Durnell. On April 27, the multinational will argue that it does not have to include a cancer warning on Roundup labels because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), relying on its 2020 findings that glyphosate is “unlikely to be a human carcinogen,” does not require a warning. Bayer claims that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the statute that gives the EPA the authority to regulate pesticides, preempts any conflicting state laws or failure-to-warn claims.
Since Bayer’s lobbying efforts at the state and federal levels have produced mixed results, a win in the Supreme Court is key to its strategy for getting out of the red. Its repeated attempts to add immunity provisions to farm and appropriations bills have failed to get over the finish line to date, and only three of the 14 states in which Bayer has lobbied hard to push immunity legislation have actually passed laws to do that (see Part II of this series).
Bayer’s Investment in Trump Pays Off
Trump’s return to the White House created new opportunities for Bayer’s Roundup immunity campaign. Though the company had spent relatively little on political campaigns and federal elections in the past, it contributed $1 million to Trump’s 2025 inauguration, according to data compiled by OpenSecrets.
Bayer also spent $9.2 million in 2025 to hire scores of lobbyists from more than a dozen firms to push its agenda in Congress and multiple executive branch departments, according to a report by the public health research and news site U.S. Right to Know and data from OpenSecrets. Many of those lobbyists have close ties to members of the Trump administration, including Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and recently fired Attorney General Pam Bondi, giving Bayer an inside track at the White House, Department of Justice, EPA, and Department of Agriculture, among other offices and agencies.
Anderson, Bayer’s CEO, had multiple meetings with top administration officials—including Wiles—prior to Trump’s executive order, as both Politico and *The Guardian* reported.
And the pay-off has been enormous. The president’s executive order declares that “domestic production of elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides is critical to the national defense.” Bayer is the sole domestic producer of these chemicals, used both for Roundup and to supply the U.S. military with munitions.
In justifying his executive order, Trump maintains that the production of these chemicals is a matter of national security—a finding that opens the door to his invocation of the Defense Production Act (DPA), a law typically reserved for when the country is at war so that the executive branch can compel private companies to produce products needed for national defense.
Critically, the president’s executive order invokes Section 707 of the DPA as a shield that prevents companies such as Bayer from lawsuits related to materials or products produced in accordance with the act.
The true impact of Trump’s executive order—which infuriated his supporters in the MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) movement—remains unclear until courts weigh in on the legality of his liability shield gambit.
In a late February post about the legal merits of the president’s order, Whitney Ray Di Bona, a consumer safety attorney for Drugwatch, pointed out that Section 707 has typically been used to guard against contract disputes and not tort liability. “The Defense Production Act was not written as a broad product liability shield,” she wrote. “But the language of Section 707 is not expressly limited either. Until a court applies it in this context, its reach remains uncertain. Whether this executive order ultimately protects Roundup from lawsuits is still an open question.”
While the DPA’s liability shield has not yet been tested in cases like those brought against Bayer, legal experts are sounding alarms about the potential implications of the order on the ability of future plaintiffs to sue.
William Boyd, a professor at UCLA School of Law and at the Institute of the Environment and Sustainability, calls the executive order “beyond extreme” and accused the Trump administration of “placating and protecting a German multinational company.”
Boyd disagrees with Di Bona and is concerned that the liability shield will provide blanket immunity. “While the liability protections here are forward looking (that is, they do not resolve Bayer’s existing liabilities from past glyphosate exposures, which is what the Supreme Court will soon be considering), the new protections give Bayer virtually complete liability protection going forward,” Boyd argues. “Bayer can now make and sell as much glyphosate as it wants to without having to worry about any additional new claims stemming from those sales.”
In other words, Trump’s invocation of the Section 707 liability shield may create a strong defense for Bayer against future Roundup-related litigation since the company will be able to argue that national security interests trump any potential injury caused by the herbicide.
Administration Backs Bayer’s Supreme Court Push
The Trump administration has also rallied to Bayer’s defense in the high-profile Supreme Court case that will be argued this week.
Bayer’s lawyers will attempt to convince the justices to rule that the company cannot be sued for failing to warn consumers about Roundup’s health risks because the EPA doesn’t require it to do so. The ruling has the potential to impact 67,000 outstanding lawsuits against Bayer.
“Almost every pesticide injury lawsuit filed in the past 10 years has included a claim that the pesticide manufacturer failed to warn the plaintiff of the health risks associated with using their product and that such failure caused the plaintiff’s injury,” according to Brigit Rollins, an attorney with the National Agricultural Law Center.
While this will be the first time such a case is heard by the country’s highest court, costly litigation surrounding Roundup predates Bayer’s 2018 purchase of Monsanto, which first introduced the popular pesticide to the market in 1971.
After a 2015 study by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as carcinogenic to humans, more than 100,000 lawsuits over Roundup were filed in courts throughout the country. The claims stem from the allegation that Monsanto—and now Bayer—knew that Roundup exposure could lead to cancer. Causes of action in these cases range from failure-to-warn to false advertising.
After the 2018 jury verdict in San Francisco, plaintiffs have been awarded more than $8 billion at trial. Additionally, the company agreed to settle mass litigation in multiple states for $10 billion in 2020 and received preliminary court approval for a $7.25 billion settlement in March of this year. According to the 2025 financial statement filed by Bayer, the company’s total liabilities related to litigation totaled $11.25 billion last year.
Bill Dodero, senior vice president and general counsel at Bayer, says that the latest settlement is intended to help the company’s imminent battle in the Supreme Court. “The proposed class, combined with Supreme Court review … are independently necessary and mutually reinforcing steps in the company’s multipronged strategy to significantly contain the Roundup litigation,” Dodero states in a March 4 press release.
At the heart of the case pending before the Supreme Court is a $1.2-million jury verdict from 2023 that was affirmed by the Missouri Court of Appeals last year. Bayer argues that the Supreme Court must intervene and resolve a circuit court split over the preemptive effects of FIFRA.
In effect, Bayer is arguing that all states are precluded from enforcing warning label requirements on Roundup given that the EPA ordered the removal of cancer-risk warning labels from glyphosate in 2019.
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer has filed two briefs in support of Monsanto arguing that past court rulings have gotten the issue wrong and that the EPA’s approval of Roundup renders any state’s additional ruling on the subject inconsistent with federal law, and therefore any lawsuit based on state law moot.
“Three out of nine U.S. officials who signed the [latest] brief previously worked for law firms that have represented Bayer, raising questions about whether the Trump administration is providing special favors and benefits to Bayer and siding with a foreign corporation against Americans with cancer,” U.S. Right to Know reported.
The administration’s March 4 amicus brief in support of Bayer argues that without federal preemption, “All 50 states could pick their own warning regimes for health concerns, inhalation risks, first-aid procedures, or water quality, either legislatively or via jury trials … FIFRA rejects that state-by-state cacophony and vests EPA with responsibility to determine [which] pesticide warnings are necessary to protect human health and the environment.”
Bayer’s influence on the farming industry is reflected in the amici briefs filed with the Supreme Court, including one led by the American Farm Bureau Federation, the nation’s largest farming organization, along with 11 other agricultural groups. They argue that glyphosate is so vital to the American food system that pesticide manufacturers like Bayer must be protected at all costs.
On April 4, a coalition of public health, conservation, and sustainable agriculture groups filed a brief in opposition to Bayer. The company is trying to make “it and EPA be the sole arbiters of pesticides’ safety,” said George Kimbrell, the Center for Food Safety’s legal director. “Their position seeking to escape accountability for their toxic products is wrong [in] every possible way: legally, scientifically, and factually.”
Despite strong support from the Trump administration, Bayer has predicted that even if it wins a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court it would still not be completely insulated from future Roundup claims.
Regardless of the Durnell ruling, Bayer plans to continue its lobbying efforts in order to “curtail” pending lawsuits and future waves of litigation. “We’ve said many times that the size and complexity of the glyphosate litigation, as well as the uncertainties regarding the application of federal law, which impact our current and future crop protection portfolio, require a multipronged strategy and no one action by itself is going to bring closure or certainty.”
---
---
https://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/eric-schmitt
---
FAIL?
AN 4 26
President Donald Trump is facing off against the U.S. Supreme Court as part of his ongoing effort to bully his way into remaking the country in his image. It could also be only the first example.
Speaking about his trip to the Court this week, Emily Bazelon, a staff writer for The Times Magazine, chatted with opinion columnist David French about the proceedings that legal analysts agree did not go well, with Trump looming in the audience.
Bazelon called Trump's flex a provocative political stunt, doubting its legal merit against the 14th Amendment, the Wong Kim Ark case (1898) and longstanding statutes.
"To me, this is the headline: Trump Trolls America. Because I don’t think the administration is making a serious legal argument," she said.
Criticizing Solicitor General D. John Sauer's "revisionist" history, Bazelon pointed to a moment in which the Trump lawyer outright misrepresented a 1921 law review article. Normally, lawyers trying to make a case before the Supreme Court cite the law itself, or conversations around making the law.
"Evan Bernick, a law professor, posted excerpts from that article to show that the solicitor general got it wrong," said Bazelon. While Sauer cited part of the review to justify those who thought the 14th Amendment to have a "domicile requirement." Meaning, if a family has a child in the U.S. they have to be established in the U.S. They can't simply come to the U.S. as part of "birth tourism," he called it.
"Too easy,"Evan Bernick said, chipping away at Sauer's argument. "He literally goes on to say that WKA follows the common law and the common law has no domicile requirement."
"Here’s the transcript. Sauer is just… lying," he added.
At one point, responding to Sauer's claim that it was a "new world," Chief Justice Roberts retorted, "It's a new world, but it's the same Constitution." It indicated skepticism on his part, but it was only the beginning of a very "bad" legal argument, CNN analysts agreed.
French focused on MAGA's outcome-driven approach with the textualists crowd, who believe the law applies to exactly what the text says and means at the time it was written.
Both note Trump's courtroom attendance was outright bullying, akin to his attacks on "rogue judges."
French added that Trump has started to treat the Supreme Court the same way he does with Republicans in Congress.
"He’s trying to insult, mock and bully them into compliance, but it’s not going to work. With precious few exceptions, the judiciary from top to bottom is unmoved. Judges are not so easily intimidated," said French.
Bazelon has another concern, however.
Another piece of "law as politics maneuvering that is eating at me," she said," is Stephen Miller. He "has been suggesting that Texas end public school funding for undocumented kids. A 1982 Supreme Court decision, Plyler v. Doe, requires states to pay for the education of all students, no matter their immigration status. But Miller and his allies would like nothing better than to set up a court challenge that could lead to the reversal of Plyler. It’s all in the service of immiserating immigrants to induce them to leave. I hope this is obvious, but taking away school from children — that is a real betrayal."
It's only one of the many cases that Republicans have their eyes on.
French said that it's time that Congress take the next steps to clarify the vague laws.
---
---
an 2 26
Fulton County, Georgia, has hit back against the Trump administration following the controversial election center raid last month, with Politico's Josh Gerstein reporting that a revised filing from the county accused the government of being "woefully short" on evidence of wrongdoing and violating the Constitution.
Near the end of January, FBI agents raided an election center in Fulton County, the most populous county in Georgia, and a major focal point for Donald Trump's false claims that voter fraud cost him the 2020 election. Agents gathered various records from the building, including 2020 ballots, as part of an investigation into long-debunked allegations of fraud in the state, which went for Joe Biden by a slim margin in the 2020 race. Critics have also alleged that the raid is intended to fabricate a pretext to allow the federal government to interfere with Georgia elections.
The county has since taken the administration to court over the incident, demanding that they return the ballots seized last month and accusing it of pushing through with the operation despite having no evidence of wrongdoing. A revised filing from Tuesday afternoon made that argument clear, as Gerstein explained in a post to X.
"Revised Fulton County demand for return of 2020 ballots seized by FBI calls evidence 'woefully short' of showing probable cause that a crime was committed," Gerstein wrote. "County says actions would have to be willful to be crimes & no claim/proof of that."
Within the new filing, the county alleged that the sworn affidavits submitted by FBI agents claiming there to be probable cause for the raid were lacking actual evidence, despite a judge later signing off on a warrant for the operation. It also accused the government of violating Fourth Amendment rights against "unreasonable search and seizure."
"In seizing Petitioners’ property by relying on a warrant that was entirely devoid of probable cause, Respondent callously disregarded Petitioners’ rights underthe Fourth Amendment," the county's petition argued. "This flagrant constitutional violation compels immediate equitable relief from this Court—namely, an order requiring Respondent to return Fulton County’s original election records, as well as any copies."
In response to another X user, Gerstein noted that "probable cause to believe a crime was committed" is necessary to get a search and seizure warrant.
Legal experts have previously weighed in on these affidavits after they were unsealed, expressing befuddlement as to how a judge could have signed off on a warrant in response to them. David Becker, the founder and director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, told CNN last week that there was "nothing" in them that showed probable cause.
"I have no idea how it was signed off on," Becker said. "When I heard they were unsealing the affidavit, I was actually expecting — even though we knew there would be no actual reality of a crime there, those ballots have been counted multiple times — but I was wondering what the administration would use that was new, that would justify these claims... There was no allegation of intent, which is a necessary element of the crime. In fact, they admit there's no intent that's evident at all."
---
---
SEE STAFFER NETWORK
AN 2 26
The Missouri prosecutor overseeing an investigation into the 2020 vote in Fulton County, Georgia, has taken part in meetings since last fall with lawyers tasked by President Donald Trump to reinvestigate his loss to Joe Biden.
Thomas Albus, whom Trump appointed last year as U.S. attorney for Missouri’s Eastern District, has had multiple meetings set up with top administration lawyers to discuss election integrity.
At those meetings was Ed Martin, a Justice Department lawyer who until recently led a group investigating what the president has described as the department’s “weaponization” against him and his allies, according to a source familiar with the meetings who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution.
White House lawyer Kurt Olsen, who has been tasked with reinvestigating the 2020 election, also was directed to join at least one of the meetings, according to the source. Both Martin and Olsen worked on behalf of Trump to try to overturn the 2020 election results, and a federal court sanctioned Olsen for making false claims about the reliability of voting machines in Arizona.
The meetings reveal new details about the length of the preparations for, and people involved in, the January FBI raid on Fulton County, which election and legal experts told ProPublica was a significant escalation in Trump’s breaking of democratic norms.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi picked Albus and has granted him special authority to handle election-related cases nationwide, even though his earlier work as a federal prosecutor didn’t involve election law or election-related cases. The meetings with Martin, Olsen and other lawyers for the Justice Department were described by the source as being about “election integrity,” a term the Trump administration has used to describe investigations into its false claims that elections are rigged.
Martin, Olsen, Albus and others declined to answer questions about the meetings and other detailed questions from ProPublica. The White House and the Justice Department also did not respond to questions.
The meetings came at a particularly crucial time.
Martin’s efforts to obtain election materials from Fulton County, a Democratic stronghold, had hit a wall. In August, he sent a letter demanding that a Fulton County judge allow him to access tens of thousands of absentee ballots for “an investigation into election integrity here at the Department of Justice,” but he had reportedly received no reply.
Martin explained to Steve Bannon on a podcast that aired around the time of the meetings that although the White House had given Olsen the official mandate to reinvestigate the 2020 election, “inside DOJ, myself and a couple of others have been working also on the same topic” — including getting the Fulton County ballots. But Martin described progress as a “challenge.”
Bannon, who served as Trump’s chief strategist in his first term, asked why Martin didn’t just “get some U.S. marshals to go down and seize” the ballots.
Martin suggested it was easier said than done, but agreed: “Look, we’ve got to get” the ballots.
Before long, Albus and Olsen were interviewing witnesses for their case. Kevin Moncla, a conservative researcher, told ProPublica that he spoke to Albus and Olsen a couple of times, both together and separately, around the turn of the year. He identified himself as Witness 7 in the affidavit that persuaded a judge to sign off on the raid, and the affidavit mentions a 263-page report he authored that activists believe may have justified the raid, ProPublica has reported. Moncla has a long history of working with Olsen, dating back to an attempt by Kari Lake, a Republican candidate for governor in Arizona, to overturn her 2022 loss.
Just a few weeks after those interviews, in late January, Albus was listed as the government attorney on the search warrant that authorized the seizure of roughly 700 boxes of election material in Georgia, far outside of Albus’ usual jurisdiction.
Former U.S. attorneys from both parties said it was rare for a federal prosecutor from one region to take on cases in other states or be granted the nationwide authority Albus has been given.
Under Trump, senior roles across the White House, DOJ and FBI have increasingly been filled by a small, interconnected group of Missouri lawyers with longstanding ties to one another.
Another top federal official in the meetings was Jesus Osete, the principal deputy assistant attorney general for civil rights. Before joining the Justice Department, Osete worked in the Missouri attorney general’s office, where he represented the state in at least five lawsuits against the Biden administration regarding vaccine mandates, immigration and other policies. Osete did not respond to requests for comment or to a detailed list of questions.
When the FBI raided Fulton County’s election center, Andrew Bailey, another lawyer from the same political circles, was in charge. Before joining the FBI as deputy director, he had used his position as Missouri’s attorney general to pursue high-profile cases against prominent Democrats and said he supported all efforts to investigate Biden, his family and his administration.
A spokesperson for the FBI declined to answer detailed questions about Bailey.
Last year, Roger Keller, a veteran federal prosecutor from Albus’ office, was brought in to help prosecute New York Attorney General Letitia James for alleged mortgage fraud in Virginia after the original career prosecutors on the case were replaced by political appointees. After a judge dismissed the case, two federal grand juries declined to indict James again, and Keller returned to Missouri.
Trump’s solicitor general, D. John Sauer, previously served as Missouri’s solicitor general under state attorneys general Josh Hawley and Eric Schmitt. He and Schmitt signed Missouri’s amicus brief supporting efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results. Sauer later represented Trump in his presidential-immunity case, successfully arguing before the Supreme Court that Trump was entitled to broad immunity from prosecution.
Albus’ connection to the other Missouri lawyers goes back decades. Unlike some of the others, though, he has never held elected office or had a high public profile, nor has he waged culture-war campaigns like Bailey or Martin. Instead, he spent most of his career as a federal prosecutor and as a judge in a Missouri state circuit court.
Emails show Albus exchanging brief messages with Martin in 2007, when Albus was an assistant U.S. attorney in St. Louis and Martin was chief of staff to then-Gov. Matt Blunt. The emails were part of records from the Blunt administration that became public after being released under Missouri’s Sunshine Law.
In the email exchange, Albus put in a good word for a St. Louis lawyer who was a finalist for an appellate court judgeship, and Blunt ultimately selected that candidate.
Albus served as first assistant to Schmitt from early 2019 until Albus was appointed by Gov. Mike Parson to fill a circuit court judge vacancy in early 2020. Schmitt, now a U.S. senator, praised Albus as “one of the finest prosecutors I have ever met” when endorsing his nomination for U.S. attorney in December.
Lawyers who appeared in Albus’ court rated him as well prepared, professional and attentive, according to Missouri judicial performance reviews. They said he followed the evidence, applied the law correctly and gave clear reasons for his rulings.
Albus came under more critical scrutiny after Trump named him interim U.S. attorney last summer. Much of that attention centered on a fraud case he inherited when he took office. Prosecutors alleged that developers in St. Louis falsely claimed to be using minority- and women-owned subcontractors to qualify for city tax breaks, conduct the Justice Department has historically treated as wire fraud.
One of the defendants was represented by lawyer Brad Bondi, the brother of Pam Bondi.
The developers’ lawyers argued that even if the government’s claims were true, they were legally irrelevant because the Trump administration had taken the position that tax breaks based on race or gender were unlawful. Albus accepted those arguments and dropped the case. As part of the resolution, Albus personally hand-delivered to City Hall a check of about $1 million from one of the developers’ companies as restitution. He told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that he intervened “to make it clear” his office wanted to drop charges and hand-delivered the check “to make sure they got it.”
In a letter to Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, Congressional Democrats said the dismissal of the St. Louis case and other cases in which the Justice Department intervened on behalf of Brad Bondi’s clients raised “significant broader ethical concerns.” In the St. Louis case, and in a separate matter involving another Brad Bondi client whose charges were dropped, a Justice Department spokesperson said Pam Bondi’s relationship with her brother had “no bearing on the outcome.”
A spokesperson for the developers said their lawyers communicated only with the U.S. attorney’s office in St. Louis about the case and had no direct contact with Pam Bondi. He said the dismissal reflected “a recognition that this case should never have been brought in the first place.” Brad Bondi did not respond to a request for comment.
Weeks later, around the time of Albus’ meetings about election integrity, he posed with Martin in Martin’s office, flanked by a framed photo of Trump and a copy of “A Choice, Not an Echo,” the influential conservative manifesto by Phyllis Schlafly arguing that Republican voters were being manipulated by party elites and the media.
Martin posted the photo on X with the caption, “Good morning, America. How are ya’?”
---
---
AN 2 26
Typically, when the U.S. Supreme Court hears a case, it’s because it has worked its way up from local courts through appeals. That’s not enough for President Donald Trump’s administration.
In a Friday report, CNN's John Fritze wrote that under the leadership of Solicitor General D. John Sauer, however, the DOJ has filed at least five unsolicited briefs demanding action from the Supreme Court on culture-war issues.
Guns, religion and regulation are top of mind for an administration that wants huge changes to U.S. law immediately. One of those is a challenge to Colorado’s rules on funding religious preschools and a Second Amendment case over Hawaii’s limits on carrying guns onto private property.
Traditionally, the Justice Department can contribute its own opinions on the high court, and the solicitor general can make his own recommendations. The post has "long carried a special weight at the Supreme Court," the report explained.
“It’s using the solicitor general’s unique position as a way to push not just the policy and political agenda of the current president, but the broader ideological agenda of the Republican Party,” said Georgetown University Law Center professor Steve Vladeck, when speaking to CNN.
While earlier solicitor general offices tended to avoid overtly political battles, Trump’s DOJ is seeking them out. Sauer serves at the pleasure of the president, but he also occupies a special role as a kind of “10th justice,” with a distinct responsibility to the Court itself. So far, Sauer has largely managed to balance those sometimes competing demands: the 6–3 conservative Court repeatedly sided with Trump last year, backing the administration about 80% of the time on its emergency docket. Attorney General Pam Bondi even bragged about that record before a contentious House hearing this week.
Seeing Sauer pivot away from past practices to political territory, however, could mean higher scrutiny, CNN said.
When there is an appeal from a lower court, the high court spends weeks debating over whether it should move forward. There are third parties that submit letters and their own official "friend-of-the-court" briefs on the matter.
Over the last year, however, at least five times, the Trump administration sent its own demand for intervention.
There were no similar briefs submitted by President Joe Biden's administration over his four years in office. Former President Bill Clinton served for eight years, SCOTUSblog said.
CNN cited a source familiar with the DOJ's approach, saying that, so far, the court has been open to Trump's demands, granting three of five cases.
“Only infrequently does the solicitor general file unsolicited amicus briefs at the certiorari stage,” said former solicitor general assistant Patricia Millett in a 2009 academic journal. “After all, if the court believes that the government’s views would be helpful to its decision, it will ask for them.”
The department’s credibility “depends, in large part, on consistently applying extremely selective and exacting criteria before asking the court to exercise its jurisdiction," the now-judge added.
Appellate attorney William Jay, who worked in the solicitor general's office and clerked for far-right Justice Antonin Scalia, claimed that Biden likely didn't use the tactic because they were being more selective. Trump's administration is generally less strategic.
“In absolute terms, the numbers remain small,” appellate lawyer John Elwood wrote on SCOTUSblog. “But relative to historical practice, the increase is meaningful. A mechanism once used sparingly is now being deployed with some regularity.”
---
WIKI NO TALK D. John Sauer - Wikipedia
After law school, Sauer was a law clerk to Judge J. Michael Luttig of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from 2004 to 2005 and to Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court of the United States from 2005 to 2006.
Sauer worked as a litigation associate at Cooper & Kirk and then became an Assistant United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri. He later reentered private practice.[4]^
In 2015, Sauer defended a priest accused of sexually abusing children. Sauer helped the priest sue his accusers, including the alleged victim's mother.
...
Missouri solicitor general
In January 2017, then-Missouri attorney general Josh Hawley appointed Sauer Solicitor General of Missouri.[13]
On December 10, 2020, as Solicitor General Counsel of Record, Sauer signed the "Motion of States of Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Utah to Intervene and Proposed Bill of Complaint in Intervention" in an attempt to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election.[14] The motion sought to intervene and join the Texas Bill of Complaint—filed by Texas attorney general Ken Paxton—to prevent the selection of presidential electors based upon the November election results in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan.[15]
In January 2023, Missouri attorney general Andrew Bailey appointed Sauer Deputy Attorney General for Special Litigation.[16][17] Sauer resigned from his post less than a month later, on January 27, 2023.[18]
In July 2023, Sauer testified before the United States House Judiciary Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government as Louisiana Department of Justice Special Assistant Attorney General.[19]
Representing Donald Trump
On January 9, 2024, Sauer appeared before a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to argue on behalf of former president Donald Trump regarding his presidential immunity dispute. Trump's immunity dispute was a component of United States of America v. Donald J. Trump, the federal criminal case concerning Trump's obstruction of the 2020 US presidential election.[20]
At the hearing, in response to a hypothetical question posed by Judge Florence Y. Pan about whether a president could order SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival and be immune from prosecution,[21] Sauer argued that the impeachment clause in Article II § Section 4 of the US Constitution[22] implies that the US Senate must first impeach and convict an accused president before they can be criminally prosecuted, and that acquittal bars prosecution.[23] Sauer further stated that should the court accept the United States' position regarding the (lack) of presidential immunity, it "would authorize, for example, the indictment of President Biden in the Western District of Texas after he leaves office for mismanaging the border allegedly".[24]
U.S. solicitor general
In November 2024, President-elect of the United States Donald Trump announced that he would nominate Sauer to serve as Solicitor General of the United States.[25] His nomination was confirmed by the US Senate on April 4, 2025, by a vote of 52–45.[26] He took office the same day.[27]
In May 2025, Sauer asked the US Supreme Court to include the Department of Government Efficiency as a "presidential advisory body" within the Executive Office of the President.[28] In the same month, during a legal proceeding concerning birthright citizenship in the United States, Sauer informed the Supreme Court—regarding decisions from United States circuit courts—that the executive branch "generally respect[s] circuit precedent, but not necessarily in every case".[29]
See also
---
---
The Brilliant Legal Mind of John Sauer - Ethics & Public Policy Center
The Brilliant Legal Mind of John Sauer NO APPARENT IRONY
Published August 24, 2023
*Commentary
On July 20, our attorney John Sauer—a brilliant legal mind and a force of nature in the courtroom—testified before a Congressional hearing of the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of Government. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Emma-Jo Morris, the journalist who originally broke the Hunter Biden laptop story, which was subsequently censored under pressure from the FBI, also testified. In a “you can’t make this stuff up moment,” one committee member began this hearing—a hearing on the topic of government censorship—by calling for a vote to censor the hearing itself, shielding it from public view and removing it from the public record.
You can watch the entire hearing here (Sauer’s testimony begins at minute 48). For those who prefer to read, I’ve included below the text of John Sauer’s five-minute oral testimony. For those who want a deeper dive, scroll down to his more detailed written testimony, which summarizes our case’s findings related to unconstitutional government censorship
Oral Testimony of D. John Sauer
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee:
On July 4, 2023—Independence Day—Judge Terry A. Doughty of the U.S. District Court of the Western District of Louisiana entered an historic injunction against White House and other federal officials to prevent them from “urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech posted on social-media platforms.” Ex. 2, at 4.
Judge Doughty’s opinion contains 82 pages of detailed factual findings, supported by 577 citations of the record evidence, drawn from roughly 20,000 pages of the federal Government’s own emails and communications with social-media platforms, and the sworn testimony of senior federal officials in six full-length depositions. Ex. 1, at 4–86.
The Department of Justice filed an “emergency” stay motion in the U.S. Court of Appeals to block this injunction. Notably, in its stay motion, the Government hardly disputed a single factual findingfrom Judge Doughty’s opinion. These facts—supported by overwhelming evidence drawn from federal officials’ own mouths—are irrefutable.
The Court of Appeals has not granted this stay motion, but it has entered a “temporary administrative stay” and granted expedited briefing and oral argument on August 10. Contrary to some recent suggestions, a temporary administrative stay in such cases is “routine practice” in the Fifth Circuit and does not reflect a prejudgment of the merits. In re Abbott, 800 F. App’x 296, 298 (5th Cir. 2020).
The Louisianaopinion demonstrates that federal officials have covertly injected themselves into the content-moderation decisions of major social-media platforms, through a years-long campaign of threats, “unrelenting pressure,” collusion, and deceit. This campaign targets specific speakers and viewpoints, and it also affects platforms’ content-moderation policies.
Today, I offer seven observations drawn from the Louisianaopinion:
First,the Louisianacourt found, based on overwhelming evidence, that federal officials causethe censorship of disfavored viewpoints. The Government frequently claims that social-media platforms, acting on their own, would censor all the targeted speech anyway. This is demonstrably false. Again and again, the Louisianacourt found the platforms would not suppressthe speech that federal officials target absent their intervention; federal officials causethe additional censorship. The deplatforming of Alex Berenson, the throttling of Tucker Carlson’s content, the silencing of the so-called “Disinformation Dozen,” the de-boosting of so-called “borderline” content on Facebook, the censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story, and much more—all were suppressed because offederal officials’ efforts.
Second,the scope and reach of federal censorship is staggering. As Louisianafound, it affects “millions” of social-media speakers and posts across America. It affects virtually any American who reads, listens, engages, or posts on social media about hotly disputed social and political questions.
Third,federal censorship is ongoing and shows no signs of stopping. The Louisianaopinion cites undisputed evidence demonstrating that federal officials’ censorship efforts are in full swing, and they are expanding to new frontiers. Left unchecked, federal censorship will reach virtually any disputed social and political question over which federal officials want to impose their power.
Fourth,the Louisianaopinion shows that federal officials are most eager to silence truthfulspeech, and to muzzle the most influential critics of the Administration and its policies. Tucker Carlson, Alex Berenson, and others were censored because they were the most effective speakers opposed to the Administration and its policies. Federal officials try to justify censorship as protecting innocent Americans from supposed “misinformation” and “disinformation.” This defense is false. Censorship is not about truth. It is about power—preserving and expanding the power of the censors and the political narratives they favor.
Fifth,federal officials are deeply intertwined with the “Censorship-Industrial Complex.” The Louisianacourt made detailed findings about the close connections and cooperation between federal national-security officials and the mass-surveillance and mass-censorship enterprise calling itself the “Election Integrity Partnership” and the “Virality Project.” Not just CISA officials, but also White House, State Department, and Surgeon General officials have deep ties to this enterprise. As Louisianafound, “CISA and the EIP were completely intertwined.”
Sixth,federal officials not only dictate the outcomes of specific content-moderation decisions. They also directly induce changes to content-moderation policiesat major social-media platforms to ban disfavored viewpoints in advance. As the Louisianacourt held, federal officials used “the power of the government to pressure social-media platforms to change their policiesand to suppress free speech.”
Seventh,the federal Censorship Enterprise has succeeded in transforming online discourse throughout America by rendering entire viewpoints virtually unspeakable on social media—the “modern public square.” It also directly interferes with another cherished First Amendment freedom—the right of citizens to organize to petition the government for redress of grievances. This ongoing distortion of the most fundamental American freedom, the right to free speech, is intolerable under the First Amendment.
Written Testimony of D. John Sauer
My name is D. John Sauer. I serve as a Special Assistant Attorney General for the State of Louisiana, and I serve as litigation counsel in the case Louisiana, et al. v. Biden, et al., No. 3:22- cv-01213-TAD (W.D. La.) (“Louisiana”). I testified before this panel on March 30, 2023, regarding the status of discovery in that case. My previous testimony is attached as Exhibit 3. I speak here today in my individual capacity, and not on behalf of any of my clients.
On July 4, 2023—Independence Day—Judge Terry A. Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana entered a historic injunction in Louisiana v. Biden. See LouisianaDocs. 293, 294 (attached as Exhibits 1 and 2). The injunction prevents federal officials from the White House and several federal agencies from “urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech posted on social-media platforms.” Ex. 2, at 4.
The injunction is based on 82 pages of detailed factual findings supported by 577 citations of evidence in the record, which includes over 18,000 pages of federal officials’ own documents and communications with social-media platforms, and six full-length depositions of senior federal officials with firsthand knowledge of federal censorship practices. In short, the judgment is based on overwhelming evidence drawn from federal officials’ own mouths.
...
Conclusion: Two Visions of Freedom
This struggle over federal censorship reflects two competing visions of freedom in America. First, as the Louisianacourt emphasizes, CISA Director Jen Easterly aptly summarizes the federal officials’ view: “She … stated, ‘We live in a world where people talk about alternative facts, post-truth, which I think is really, really dangerous if people get to pick their own facts.’” Ex. 1, at 77. She also stated, “[W]e’re in the business of protecting critical infrastructure, and the most critical is our ‘cognitive infrastructure.’” Id.
Thus, Easterly’s view—reflected in federal censorship activity—is that the American “people” cannot be trusted “to pick their own facts,” and that the governmentshould pick our facts for us. Id.She believes that the federal government—armed with the weapons, authority, and the domestic surveillance capacity of the national-security state—should police our “cognitive infrastructure.” Id.As the Louisianacourt found, “cognitive infrastructure” means that “the CISA Defendants believe they had a mandate to control the process of acquiring knowledge.” Id.at 110.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s watershed First Amendment opinions express a radically different view of freedom. “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.” W. Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943). “Our constitutional tradition stands against the idea that we need Oceania’s Ministry of Truth.” United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709, 723 (2012) (plurality op.).
The Louisianacase is one part of a titanic struggle between these two visions of freedom. The former view—the view reflected in the actions of federal censorship agents like Jennifer Psaki, Rob Flaherty, Andy Slavitt, Dr. Vivek Murthy, Carol Crawford, Dr. Anthony Fauci, Jen Easterly, Matthew Masterson, Brian Scully, Alex Stamos, Rene DiResta, Kate Starbird, Elvis Chan, Laura Dehmlow, and a host of other federal censors—is terrifying and tyrannical, and its power is expanding rapidly. But the latter view is the vision enshrined in the plain text of our Constitution and deeply engrained in our traditions of liberty. I am profoundly hopeful that this latter vision of freedom will prevail.
Aaron Kheriaty, MD, is a Fellow & Director of the Bioethics, Technology and Human Flourishing Program at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He is a physician specializing in psychiatry and author of three books, including most recently, The New Abnormal: The Rise of the Biomedical Security State (2022).*}:
---
OFF BS
July 28, 2025
Senator Schmitt Praises Trump Nominees for Missouri U.S. Attorneys
WASHINGTON –U.S. Senator Eric Schmitt (R-MO) released the following statement after President Trump tapped two qualified Missourians to serve as U.S. Attorneys for the Western and Eastern Districts of Missouri. Both nominees will assume their role as interim U.S. Attorney for their respective district on August 1st.
“President Trump is the President of law and order, and I’m glad to see him select two exceptional interim U.S. Attorneys who will protect Missourians’ rights and promote law and order in Missouri’s Eastern and Western Districts. When I served as Missouri Attorney General, Thomas Albus played a key role as First Assistant in my Attorney General office as we worked to defend the Show Me State from big government overreach, and I’m impressed with Matthew Price’s extensive prosecutorial experience and leadership abilities. I’m thankful for President Trump’s attention to Missouri. Albus and Price are law men, through and through. It is my expectation that each will do a great job, and I look forward to seeing them swiftly confirmed,” said Senator Schmitt.
The interim appointments include:
- Thomas Albus, who worked for Senator Schmitt during his tenure as Missouri’s Attorney General as his First Assistant and served for 17 years as an assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Missouri, to serve as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri.
- Matthew Price, an experienced corporate lawyer who previously served as an Assistant United States Attorney, as a State Prosecutor, and as a Chief Legal Officer for a major Missouri company, to serve as U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri.
---
missouri-members-of-trump-legal-team-score-high-profile-jobs-in-administration
President-elect Donald Trump tapped two Missouri members of the legal team for jobs in the new administration, naming D. John Sauer solicitor general and Will Scharf assistant to the president and White House staff secretary.
Sauer, who lives in the St. Louis suburb of Town and Country, was Missouri solicitor general from 2017 through 2022 under Josh Hawley and Eric Schmitt. In that job, he led Missouri’s unsuccessful effort alongside other GOP attorneys general to keep Trump in power by challenging the 2020 election results.
More recently, Sauer successfully represented Trump at the U.S. Supreme Court in his bid for immunity from being criminally charged for trying to overturn the 2020 election. The justices voted 6-3 along ideological lines in July to give Trump immunity from some official acts he took as president.
As solicitor general, Sauer will be responsible for litigating the federal government’s positions at the U.S. Supreme Court.
“He is a legit genius, an incredible lawyer and I’m thrilled for him and his family,” Schmitt posted on social media.
Scharf, who ran unsuccessfully against Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey in the GOP primary, briefly served in the administration of former Gov. Eric Greitens before moving to Washington, D.C., to work for the advocacy organization Judicial Crisis Network, focused on judicial confirmations and nominations, most notably Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
In 2020, he returned to Missouri to work as an assistant U.S. attorney in St. Louis. Alongside Sauer, Scharf was part of the team advising and defending Trump in his myriad criminal trials over the last year.
In his new job, Scharf will decide which memos, briefings and reports will go to the president and who should weigh in on issues and speeches.
“Will is a highly skilled attorney who will be a crucial part of my White House team,” Trump said in announcing Scharf’s appointment, later adding: “Will is going to make us proud as we Make America Great Again.”
---
---
CONTEXT
Sotomayor corners GOP lawyer on Trump’s 'quid pro quo' in campaign finance argument
AN 12 9 25
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor blasted loosened campaign finance rules during oral arguments in a case that would allow political parties to receive even more donations.
Calling it “the most consequential campaign finance-related dispute” since Citizens United, Axios explained that “the justices will decide whether to eliminate a federal law that limits the amount of money big-money party committees can spend in direct coordination with favored candidates.”
Appearing skeptical that the Court should rule in his favor, Justice Sotomayor walked Noel Francisco, the attorney for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, through some top donors to both Republican and Democratic presidential candidates while warning about the appearance of quid pro quo.
“Your answer is suggesting to me that every time we interfere with the congressional design, we make matters worse,” Justice Sotomayor said. “You’re telling us that Citizens United and McCutcheon ended up, yes, in amplifying the voice of corporations, but diminishing another voice, that of the party.”
“Now, you want to now tinker some more and try to raise the voice of one party,” she explained. “Our tinkering causes more harm than it does good.”
Disagreeing, Francisco replied, “Your Honor, I personally never think free speech makes things worse. I think it virtually always makes it better.”
Without mentioning any donors’ names, Justice Sotomayor then said that “in the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton set up a joint victory fund with the DNC, 32 state parties, which allowed a single donor to give up to $356,000.”
“In 2024, Donald Trump’s campaign launched a joint fundraising operation with his own leadership PAC, the RNC, and 40 State Republican Party committees, that saw donations of up to $814,600,” she said, noting, “I’m not picking on Donald Trump.”
“Joe Biden’s victory fund, together with the DNC and the party committees of all 50 states, um, raised up to $1.3 billion,” the justice added.
She warned that “once we take off this coordinated expenditure limit, then what’s left? What’s left is nothing. No control whatsoever.”
Francisco disagreed again.
“You mean to suggest,” Justice Sotomayor replied, “that the fact that one major donor to the current president, the most major donor to the current president, got a very lucrative job immediately upon election from the new administration, does not give the appearance of quid pro quo?”
“Your Honor,” Francisco responded, “I’m not 100% sure about the example that you’re looking at, but if I am familiar, if I think I know what you’re talking about, I have a hard time thinking that his salary that he drew from the federal government was an effective quid pro quo bribery, which may be why nobody has even remotely suggested that.”
Sotomayor warned, “Maybe not the salary, but certainly, the lucrative government contracts might be.”
---
AN 11 25
SAUER FLAILS?
Wednesday, November 5 was an important day for the U.S. Supreme Court, whose justices listened to oral arguments in Learning Resources v. Trump.The nine justices are examining President Donald Trump's ability to unilaterally impose, by executive order, steep new tariffs invoking a Jimmy Carter-era law: the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA).
The legal analyst Lisa Rubin weighed in on the hearing — and she thought that conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett was especially tough when questioning Trump's allies.
Conservative host Joe Scarborough noted that when Solicitor General John Sauer gave evasive answers to Barrett's questions, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor jumped in and chastised him for it.
Scarborough told Rubin and "Morning Joe" co-host Mika Brzezinski, "I got to say, Lisa, that the most remarkable part of that hearing was when Amy Coney Barrett had the solicitor general on the line, and he kept trying to pull away — and she kept reeling him in, and he kept trying to pull away. He kept pulling away. She just — she was tenacious. And finally, Justice Sotomayor, I think, in an act of mercy, said: Just answer her question. You're not answering her question. We all know you can't answer her question. Just admit it, basically, is what Justice Sotomayor was saying."
Rubin agreed with Scarborough's analysis, emphasizing that Barrett was tenacious in her questioning of Sauer.
"Pity the person who comes on the other side of Amy Coney Barrett, who is precise, pragmatic and the mother of seven children," Rubin told Scarborough and Brzezinski. "So, if anybody is well prepared for that kind of questioning, I would venture a guess, it's Amy Coney Barrett. And you're right to say that she was completely fixated on the plain text of the statute. The argument that the (Trump) administration is relying upon is that the words 'regulate importation' somehow include the power to impose tariffs."
Rubin continued, "But of course, not only is the word tariff not present ... there is nothing in the string of verbs there, as Justice (Elena) Kagan mentioned, that gets to where John Sauer, the solicitor general, wants to see the argument go. There's nothing in all of the things that the president can do under this Emergency Powers Act that has anything to do with raising revenue, much less imposing taxes or duties. And that's where you get to the question of the larger constitutional issues about whose responsibilities really are these?"
---
AN 11 25
Wednesday's Supreme Court "showdown" over President Donald Trump's tarriffs is putting America's highest court in a major bind, Politico reports.
Trump is asking the justices to overturn lower-court decisions that declared many of his tariffs "an illegal overreach" as they found that a 1977 law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, did not authorize the president to impose such broad tariffs.
“Nowhere does it say tariffs, taxes, duties,” noted Elizabeth Goitein, who studies emergency powers at New York University’s Brennan Center.
This showdown, Politico says, is an "epic clash between two of the most deeply ingrained tenets of the conservative legal movement."
One of those tenets, Politico explains, "is that presidents need and are entitled to extreme deference on matters of national security and foreign policy," suggesting that "the six conservative justices may be willing to uphold Trump’s unprecedented move to bypass Congress and unilaterally impose sweeping global tariffs."
Chief Justice Roberts, however, has made a name for himself opposing "government meddling in the free market," they explain, which "could prompt the court’s conservatives to view Trump’s tariffs more skeptically than they view many of his other, non-economic policies."
Jonathan Adler, a professor at William and Mary Law School, says that the justices are going to be conflicted.
“I think that some of the justices that matter are going to feel a bit torn,” he said. “What’s interesting here is that this case requires some of the conservative justices to confront a conflict between different strands of their own jurisprudence.”
The court, Politico explains, must differentiate between whether the tariffs are just part of the president's economic policy or a "core part" of his management of national security and international relations.
“How this case comes out will depend in large part on what the frame or the lens on it is,” said Vikram Amar, a law professor at the University of California at Davis. “Is this a case about unbridled, unauthorized — at least not explicitly authorized — broad executive authority, or is this a case about presidential ability to discharge foreign affairs and national security responsibilities?”
These questions, Politico says, is "most acute" for Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who is "the high court’s most outspoken voice for the president’s need for flexibility and dexterity in response to international challenges. But he is also highly skeptical of government power in the economic realm."
"If an agency wants to exercise expansive regulatory authority over some major social or economic activity … an ambiguous grant of statutory authority is not enough,” Kavanaugh wrote in a nod to his "fealty" to the conservative theory known as the “major questions doctrine."
That doctrine says that "courts should block executive branch actions of widespread impact when their legal basis is ambiguous," Politico explains.
“Congress must clearly authorize an agency to take such a major regulatory action," Kavanaugh added.
Experts see Kavanaugh "likely to lean towards blessing the tariffs," Politico says, while "Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch are thought by court watchers to be even more likely to uphold the tariffs."
Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett are the ones to watch, they say.
“The center of the court is going to be especially interesting to watch,” Roman Martinez, a former law clerk to Kavanaugh and Roberts, said about them during a discussion at Georgetown Law.
“I think this case will probably split the conservatives,” said Cary Coglianese, a University of Pennsylvania law school professor who specializes in administrative law and regulatory processes.
Whatever they rule, Politico writes, the conservative justices will likely emerge unscathed.
"While a ruling against the tariffs would surely infuriate Trump, it wouldn’t do much if anything to hurt the conservative justices’ standing in their legal, political and social circles," they note.
Goitein disagrees, saying, "This will be a true test of the Supreme Court in many, many ways."
---
AEI
Yesterday Justice Alito published a fiery statement explaining his dissent from the Supreme Court’s early Saturday morning order directing the U.S. government “not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees [subject to Alien Enemy Act removal] from the United States until further order.”
Alito’s statement highlighted the rushed and unusual nature of the Court’s order. What it neglected to mention was that the Court probably acted so quickly because the U.S. government cannot be trusted to comply in good faith with the Court’s April 7 order that the “AEA detainees must receive notice . . . within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.”
In its sprawling federal court litigation since January 20, the Justice Department in the lower courts has made wildly broad claims of authority and acted in a dissembling, disrespectful, and at times bad faith manner that can only be seen as purposeful and indeed coordinated. This approach has been echoed by senior administration officials, starting with the president, who have attacked courts ceaselessly (including in yesterday’s presidential Easter message).
Yet as I suggested in my interview with Ross Douthat last week, the Trump administration has been more sober in its dealings thus far with the Supreme Court. The reason why is the Office of the Solicitor General—the Justice Department component that files briefs and argues cases before the Supreme Court, and determines which cases to appeal from the district courts.
The SG’s Office has a special relationship to the Court, including special obligations and practices, that are part of the culture of the office and are the sources of its extraordinary influence. No SG should want to depart from these customs or give up this influence.
This essay is about why the SG’s traditional role is under unprecedented pressure in Trump 2.0. We are about to find out whether the new SG—John Sauer—can maintain the SG’s traditional stance toward the Court while catering to the wishes of the president and the White House.
The Tenth Justice
The SG is the only executive branch official whom Congress insists must be “learned in the law” and the only federal officer in addition to the vice president who has a formal physical office outside the executive branch.* (The SG’s other office is “in the Supreme Court building, located on the main floor in close proximity to the courtroom”; the vice-president’s is just off the Senate chamber.)
The SG is known colloquially as the “Tenth Justice” due to the office’s special role before and relationship with the Court. In a nutshell: The SG has institutionalized knowledge, massive experience and expertise, outstanding advocates, and knowledge of government interests, all of which inform the Court’s decisionmaking, and on which the Court relies heavily.
The SG’s Office is not a neutral advocate before the Court. It represents the government, which has strong and particular views, and its agenda and arguments differ by administration. But the office benefits from a deserved reputation for candor before the Court. One small but important piece of evidence of this candor is its practice of “confessing error” to the Court of an undeserved win, which happens on average around two times each Term.
As a result of the SG’s honesty and integrity in its representations, the Court treats the SG’s factual and legal claims with unusual seriousness and credibility, and gives the SG’s certiorari petitions and role as amici unusual solicitude. Four of the nine sitting Supreme Court Justices spent time in the SG’s Office.
Because of the SG’s special role before the Court, the office has traditionally had in practice (though not in law) strong independence from the attorney general and the president. As the Office of Legal Counsel once explained, while “the Attorney General has the power and the right to ‘conduct and argue’ the Government’s case in any court of the United States,” the AG has given the SG “the primary responsibility for presenting the Government’s views to the Supreme Court, and in the discharge of that function the Solicitor General has enjoyed a marked degree of independence” (emphasis added).
The same points apply to the president: He has the power, superior to the AG, to direct the SG, but by tradition has not done so except on the rarest of occasions. OLC explained:
The Constitution requires the President, and thus the Attorney General, to execute the laws faithfully. It requires them to follow the law, even if that course conflicts with policy. For this reason alone, in our view, the tradition of the “independent” Solicitor General is a wise tradition. It has arisen because it serves a useful constitutional purpose. Very simply, an independent Solicitor General assists the President and the Attorney General in the discharge of their constitutional duty: concerned as they are with matters of policy, they are well served by a subordinate officer who is permitted to exercise independent and expert legal judgment essentially free from extensive involvement in policy matters that might, on occasion, cloud a clear vision of what the law requires. While it is doubtful whether either the President or the Attorney General could “delegate” to the Solicitor General the ultimate responsibility for determining the Government’s position on questions of law presented to the Supreme Court, as a matter of practice, in the discharge of their offices, they can allow themselves the benefit of his independent judgment, and they can permit his judgment to be dispositive in the normal course.
One should not romanticize the SG’s office or its independence. Not everyone believes the SG always acts with adequate candor or integrity, and presidents and attorneys general have occasionally insisted on a view before the Court that is not shared by the SG.
But the general points hold: The SG has a very special relationship with the Court; and in deciding when and how to engage the Court, it has traditionally exercised remarkable independence and received remarkable deference inside the executive branch. There is no doubt that across the run of cases, the government benefits enormously from these practices.
John Sauer’s Predicament
As I explained about two months ago, and as remains true today, the Trump administration has taken four steps “to blunt executive branch legal obstacles to [Trump’s] will.” It has hired and fired on the basis of strict personal loyalty to the president; it has placed legal interpretation in the White House rather than in the Justice Department; it has issued directives to ensure that all executive branch lawyers “interpret the law to meet the president’s wishes”; and it has engaged in “tactics to resist compliance” with court orders that are extraordinary affronts to lower federal courts.
Until recently the SG’s Office has been something of an exception to this pattern—probably due to the factors noted above.
The SG has narrowed or sharpened some of the wild claims of executive authority in the lower courts when the cases have reached the Supreme Court’s emergency orders docket. And while the SG’s Office has filed some tartly worded briefs that seemed a bit out of character, it has paid respect to the Court that is quite different from DOJ’s lower-court behavior. At the height of the February scare about whether the administration would comply with judicial orders, the Acting SG, Sarah Harris, went out of her way in the Hampton Dellinger brief to state that the “Executive Branch takes seriously its constitutional duty to comply with the orders of Article III courts.”
John Sauer was confirmed as the SG on April 3. He is eminently qualified for the job given his past experiences, including years as the Missouri Solicitor General. He also has a qualification shared by other top DOJ officers in this administration: He represented Trump when Trump was a private citizen—for Sauer, in the immunity case before the Supreme Court. Sauer also filed a brief in the TikTok case on Trump’s behalf last December that displayed remarkable public obsequiousness to Trump.
Sauer faces some profound difficulties in his new job. He has duties toward the Court and will lose the benefits that accrue to the government if the Court cannot trust him. But Sauer will be under pressure to kowtow to the White House and to the president in particular—in legal arguments, factual representations, and tone—in his arguments before the Court. These imperatives are ultimately incompatible.
Sauer has an even broader problem. Even if he manages to maintain traditional SG independence from the president and the AG in arguments before the Court, he will be burdened before the Supreme Court by DOJ’s shenanigans in the courts below, and by the White House attacks on courts.
The Trump administration has through these actions called into question the “presumption of regularity”—the idea “that the government’s stated reasons for its actions are its true reasons and that its factual representations to the court are accurate.” The government’s credibility problem will likely influence the Supreme Court no matter what Sauer does (and probably did in the Saturday morning order, as I will explain below.) And Sauer will be stuck trying to explain actions and statements from DOJ and the White House even if his office distances itself from them.
This is all coming to a head in three cases: Abrego Garcia’s case, the AEA litigation, and the birthright citizenship case.
Abrego Garcia
Garcia is the person whom the government acknowledged was mistakenly deported. On April 10, the Supreme Court in a unanimous emergency order stated that the district order it was reviewing “properly requires the Government to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.” The Court added that “the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps.”
The government has engaged in remarkable duplicitousness before the district court on remand concerning this directive from the Supreme Court. The government’s arguments and behavior, both in this case and others, led to Judge Wilkinson’s plaintive hope in an order last Thursday “that it is not naïve to believe our good brethren in the Executive Branch perceive the rule of law as vital to the American ethos.”
The Fourth Circuit order denied the government’s request for a stay from the district court’s clarification order on remand from the Supreme Court. An important issue now is whether Sauer asks the Supreme Court for emergency relief from the district court’s actions on remand.
“Next big question is whether Solicitor General John Sauer can explain to [Deputy Chief of Staff] Stephen Miller that it would be foolish to seek emergency relief in the Supreme Court,” noted Ed Whelan last week. It would be foolish to seek emergency relief because the government lacks a good argument for such relief and has behaved atrociously in the case since the Supreme Court last faced the matter. And thus far the SG has not done so.
But consider what Sauer faces from his executive branch colleagues.
Last week his boss, Attorney General Pamela Bondi, displayed indifference to the Supreme Court order when she said in the Oval Office that Abrego Garcia “is not coming back to our country. … That’s the end of the story.” This is consistent with the basic DOJ attitude in the lower courts.
A week ago Miller denied that Garcia was “mistakenly deported anywhere” and said that the “only mistake that was made is a lawyer put an incorrect line in a legal filing.” Many judicial and government documents belie that claim. Sauer himself stated before the Supreme Court on April 7 that “the United States concedes that Garcia’s removal to El Salvador was an administrative error.”
There is no way to know Sauer’s views about these statements or whether the White House and attorney general are pressuring Sauer in the Abrego Garcia case or are directing how DOJ responds to the district court orders about next steps. Yet this behavior erodes the presumption of regularity and hurts the SG’s chances before the Supreme Court in this case and others.
AEA Case
The gist of Justice Alito’s dissent from the Court’s Saturday morning order is that the Court went too fast and acted prematurely. (Sauer made some of these points in his response to the ACLU’s emergency application, which he filed after the Court’s order and before Justice Alito’s noted dissent.)
Among other things: The Court refused to await a court of appeals decision, it did not wait for the views of the government, the applicants provided “little concrete support” for the allegation that the applicants were “in imminent danger of removal,” and the government in a different case represented on Friday that no AEA deportations were planned for April 18 or 19.
Steve Vladeck questions some of these claims and Alito’s dissent more generally. But even if we accept Alito’s points as valid, they are not the only relevant points and this is not a normal case. It is, rather, a case where the government acted with willful bad faith in seeking to circumvent judicial process related to AEA removals and in responding to district court judge James Boasberg’s initial orders. It is a case where the government engaged in gamesmanship in AEA cases following the Supreme Court’s original April 7 order. It is a case where the ACLU made representations supported by affidavits of movement toward imminent removal, and about stonewalling by counsel for the government.
This all came against the background of the administration since February disrespecting judicial orders and insinuating that it might defy them. Just hours before the Court issued its order halting AEA removals, the president stated: “We’re getting them out. And that’s why I was elected. A judge wasn’t elected to do that — I was elected to do that. And we’re doing it in record fashion.”
Taking these events together, it is pretty clear that the Court declined to give the administration a presumption of regularity and perhaps indulged a presumption of irregularity. In the coming days we will likely learn more about what the government was planning and doing last weekend. But the unusualness of the Saturday morning order suggests how much the Trump administration’s actions have influenced the Court’s attitude toward the government. It highlights Sauer’s challenge in the AEA case and in every other case.
Birthright Citizenship
Sauer’s first argument before the Supreme Court as SG will take place on April 30 in Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, a Free Exercise Clause case. Perhaps the Court will use that opportunity to question Sauer about whether it can trust the executive branch to respect its judgments. But that kind of questioning will more likely occur in the special May 15 oral argument before the Court on the stay applications concerning the birthright citizenship executive order.
As Will Baude explained, “[B]ecause there was no cert. grant [in the birthright citizenship case], there is no question presented, so it is not entirely clear what the question at oral argument will be.” He added: “[I]t is not clear whether the Court will focus on the universal injunctions question that it has avoided for a decade or so now, discuss other equitable or procedural issues, or even get into the underlying illegality of the executive order.”
But no matter what else the Court focuses on during the oral argument, some Justices may ask Sauer—whom I assume will argue—about whether the government can and should receive a presumption of regularity in its dealings before the Court. Since the argument is about an emergency order, it would be natural for Justices to ask whether and when they can trust government representations on the emergency docket, whether the government will act in good faith toward its orders in courts below, and similar questions.
In short, May 15 may be the first time an administration official is held to general public account for the administration’s actions toward federal courts. Sauer will be in a public spotlight that will reveal a lot about how much independence, if any, the Trump administration will give him in his dealings with the Court, and about whether and how much Sauer is willing to sacrifice the standing of the great office he leads in serving the president.
**This post originally stated that the SG was the “only federal officer whom Congress insists must be ‘learned in the law,’” but as a wise reader pointed out, the Senate legal counsel too must by statute be “learned in the law.”
===
omfg
no lnx
How Trump’s lawyer could steer the Supreme Court on abortion and trans rights
Joan Biskupic
By Joan Biskupic, CNN Chief Supreme Court Analyst
12 min read
Published 6:00 AM EST, Wed December 18, 2024
:
:{:{D. John Sauer testifies during a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, on July 20, 2023.}:
}:
CNN
—
President-elect Donald Trump’s choice to be the government’s top lawyer before the Supreme Court burst on the national scene about a year ago and is best known for winning Trump immunity from prosecution for election subversion.
But D. John Sauer has been an unswerving, if low-profile, foot soldier in America’s culture wars for more than a decade.
The nominee for US solicitor general has opposed abortion rights, birth-control access and same-sex marriage. He backed efforts to overturn Trump’s election defeat in 2020 and last year was one of the most prominent conservatives arguing that the Biden administration censored right-wing views about Covid-19 and vaccines.
Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts attends the State of the Union address on February 7, 2023.
Related article
Analysis: John Roberts leads the charge to uphold bans on trans care
Now, he is poised to become one of the most powerful lawyers in the country, representing the Trump administration before a conservative bench that could be even more open to the president’s agenda than the first time. Three of the nine justices were appointed by Trump during his first term.
The confluence of Sauer’s experience, his personal tie to Trump and the transformed court he will face could lead to some of the most ambitious advocacy on behalf of an administration in decades.
Sauer has already been at the lead of litigation over transgender rights, which was one of the flashpoints of the presidential race and at the center of the most closely watched case of the current term.
Within 48 hours of Trump’s November 14 selection of Sauer for the solicitor general post, Sauer appeared on a previously scheduled Federalist Society panel in Washington entitled “Sex, Gender, and the Law.” He spoke about a case he’d recently appealed to the Supreme Court on behalf of Arizona legislators who want to keep transgender girls and women from playing on female sports teams. (A federal appellate court blocked Arizona’s “Save Women’s Sports Act,” in the case brought by two transgender girls who wanted to play girls’ sports at their schools, finding that the prohibition violated the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.)
In the general comments he offered, Sauer emphasized that lower courts are divided over the level of constitutional coverage for transgender people alleging discrimination and that legal battles are bound to continue.
Earlier this month, the justices heard arguments on whether states may ban gender-affirming treatment for children experiencing gender dysphoria, that is, distress over an identity that does not match their sex at birth. The Biden administration had petitioned the justices to take the case after a US appellate court upheld bans in Tennessee and Kentucky.
One of the first challenges for the new US solicitor general will be to alert the justices to a new Trump position. The incoming administration may not want to withdraw the petition or otherwise slow down the court’s consideration of the case, US v. Skrmetti, since the justices appeared ready to uphold the bans.
Sauer declined a CNN interview request for this story.
The 50-year-old nominee is a Harvard Law grad and Rhodes scholar who served as a law clerk for the late Justice Antonin Scalia and eventually became Missouri state solicitor general.
He shunned the sometimes-confining world of corporate law that many lawyers of his pedigree choose. As a result, Sauer, intensely conservative and a committed Catholic, has been able to chart his own course in the law. He remained largely under the radar until the Trump representation.
After his nomination, Rebecca Hart Holder, president of Reproductive Equity Now, a Boston-based national abortion rights group, raised concerns about where Sauer would take the federal government on reproductive rights, for example, related to emergency-room services for pregnant women experiencing complications. The Biden administration has argued in recent lawsuits that the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) ensures emergency abortion care.
“The fact that President Trump is nominating a very well-educated conservative attorney who has made attacking abortion rights one of the cornerstones of his career is deeply troubling,” Holder told CNN, “He is an attorney who will go after not just the right to access to abortion but also, really, surveillance of people who could be seeking abortion care.”
During Sauer’s time as Missouri solicitor general, a state health director reportedly gathered information on menstrual cycles and pregnancies. The information emerged in a 2019 hearing over the state’s effort to deny Planned Parenthood a license to perform abortions.
This year, according to Missouri Ethics Commission figures, Sauer contributed $777,000 to the Missouri Right to Life political action committee and two other groups opposed to a ballot measure, known as Amendment 3, to ensure abortion rights in the state.
Among those ready to praise Sauer’s nomination was former US appellate judge Michael Luttig, who otherwise is an unrelenting critic of Trump and the Supreme Court’s decision to give him substantial immunity from prosecution.
Sketch artist William J. Hennessy Jr. sketches a scene from the senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump in the US Capitol on Thursday, January 30, 2020.
Sauer was as a law clerk to Luttig, who sat on the Richmond-based US based appellate court, before Sauer served in the chambers of Scalia, a conservative icon who died in 2016.
“He is a man of great faith and great principle,” Luttig said of Sauer, “He has stayed close to his roots in all respects. He is devoted to his family.” Luttig has declared Trump v. United States a mistake akin to the 1857 Dred Scott decision that denied Black people citizenship. But he lays it at the feet of the justices, not Sauer.
Yet it is precisely the case that has catapulted Sauer to one of the most powerful and prestigious legal positions in any administration.
When Trump announced the solicitor general nomination on November 14, his statement referred to Sauer “winning a Historic Victory on Presidential Immunity, which was key to defeating the unconstitutional campaign of Lawfare against me and the entire MAGA Movement.”
Clerkships and anti-abortion efforts
The SG, as the position is known colloquially, decides which of the government’s legal losses in lower courts to appeal and then defends the administration before the nine justices.
Most visibly, the SG stands at a mahogany lectern, before the nine justices on their elevated bench. The men who have taken the role (and all but two SGs in history have been men) wear the traditional garb of grey morning coat and grey striped trousers.
The post is currently held by Biden appointee Elizabeth Prelogar; the first woman SG was Elena Kagan, who served for a year before President Barack Obama appointed her to the Supreme Court in 2010.
Sauer’s appointment breaks a pattern of SGs chosen from large corporate law firms or high-ranking academic positions. In his first presidential term, Trump chose Noel Francisco of the global Jones Day firm.
Related article
Supreme Court says it will review if Catholic Charities is exempt from labor taxes in a major church-state case
After his judicial clerkships, Sauer worked briefly for the small but influential conservative firm of Cooper Kirk, then spent five years as an assistant US attorney in the eastern district of Missouri. He then worked for small firms and eventually founded his own law group named after James Otis, a leading political and legal activist of the colonial era who developed foundational views of a limited government and individual property rights. Sauer was captivated in his childhood by the portrayal of Otis in the Revolutionary War classic work, “Johnny Tremain.”
In private practice, Sauer wrote briefs backing abortion restrictions and arguing against the Obamacare contraceptive mandate.
He represented 67 Catholic theologians and ethicists on the side of Hobby Lobby Stores, challenging the Affordable Care Act’s birth-control insurance regulation for employers.
“The Mandate,” Sauer wrote in the 2014 case, “imposes a substantial burden on the religious freedom of Catholic employers and other religious believers who object on religious grounds to providing insurance coverage for abortifacients, elective sterilization, and/or contraceptives, and for education and counseling designed to encourage the use of such services. … (T)he Mandate thrusts Catholic and other religious employers into a ‘perfect storm’ of moral complicity in the forbidden actions.”
The Supreme Court sided with the challengers in a 5-4 decision.
Sauer also represented members of Congress who opposed same-sex marriage, in a case that eventually led to the Supreme Court’s 2015 landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision creating a fundamental right to gay and lesbian unions. The following year, he wrote a brief for a group of conservative scholars in support of a restrictive Texas abortion law. The Supreme Court in June 2016 struck down the regulations as an undue burden on a woman’s right to end a pregnancy, in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.
From 2017 to 2023, Sauer served as the Missouri state solicitor, first taking the position at the urging of then attorney general (and now US senator) Josh Hawley. He joined with other Republican-run states in briefs to the high court against federal Covid vaccine mandates for certain health care workers and against abortion rights, including in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case that led to the reversal of Roe v. Wade in 2022.
During Sauer’s tenure as state solicitor general, he defended Missouri capital cases, including one that went all the way to the Supreme Court. That case, Bucklew v. Precythe, was brought by a convicted murderer challenging the state’s lethal injection protocol. The state won in a 5-4 decision.
The square-jawed Sauer keeps his dark hair closely cropped and wears small oval shaped wire-rimmed glasses. He exudes a buttoned-down restraint but can become animated on all manner of topics.
“He’s a very well-read person with a ton of interests, from the sacred to the profane, almost literally,” said John Demers, who was a co-clerk in the Scalia chambers nearly 20 years ago and has stayed friends through the years. Demers, a vice president at Boeing, was an assistant attorney general for the National Security Division in the first Trump administration.
“He’s a practicing Catholic and we share that piece in common,” Demers said. “He can talk about theology, and he can talk to you about ‘South Park.’”
WASHINGTON, DC - DECEMBER 04: A transgender rights supporter takes part in a rally outside of the U.S. Supreme Court as the high court hears arguments in a case on transgender health rights on December 04, 2024 in Washington, DC. The Supreme Court is hearing arguments in US v. Skrmetti, a case about Tennessee's law banning gender-affirming care for minors and if it violates the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
Protestors speak out as Supreme Court hears gender-affirming care case
01:20
Sauer’s argument style can be similarly animated with moments of drama.
When he appeared before a federal appellate court in 2023 for the state of Louisiana (after leaving the Missouri SG post) in a challenge to the Biden administration’s social media practices, he spoke rapidly and emphatically.
At one point, his voice intensified with a personal claim that he had been censored after talking about the case in a recorded law office presentation: “The notion that Covid censorship is over is totally unsupportable. Two weeks ago, I gave a talk about this very case … criticizing federal government censorship.” He said the video had been posted on social media but then removed. “I was censored as a lawyer for the Louisiana attorney general,” he said, offering no further explanation nor being pressed on it by the judges hearing the case.
When the social media case later went to the Supreme Court, the justices by a 6-3 vote rejected that position, put forward by two states and five social-media users. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that the challengers had failed to demonstrate that they were injured by any administration actions.
Deep roots in Missouri
Sauer’s first name is Dean, but he has always gone by his middle name of John. He attended a Catholic grade school and then Saint Louis Priory, a Benedictine monk-run boys’ secondary school. He went to Duke on an academic scholarship and became captain of the varsity wrestling team. Before studying at Harvard Law School, he was a Rhodes scholar, attending Oriel College at the University of Oxford.
Sauer’s family goes back several generations in Missouri. He and his wife have five young children. Associates say he is still deciding whether to move the family to Washington, DC.
Sauer’s father, Fred, founded an investment firm and became president of Missouri Roundtable for Life, a cause to which John has contributed. (Fred Sauer ran unsuccessfully for the Republican nomination for governor in 2012.)
John Sauer also contributed heavily to the Missouri Right to Life PAC this year as the group was fighting the ballot measure to establish a right to abortion in the state’s constitution. Voters approved Amendment 3, which overturned a state ban and gave residents a right to end a pregnancy up to the point that a fetus would be viable, that is, live outside the woman.
Since Sauer’s time as a state solicitor general, he has been active in numerous red state litigation efforts.
After the 2020 presidential election, he joined with a handful of other Republican state lawyers to challenge the election results that gave Joe Biden the White House. He shepherded a brief on behalf of six states that sought to intervene in the case first filed by Texas against Pennsylvania and other swing states that favored Biden. (The Supreme Court declined to hear the case.)
Trump v. United States
Sauer came to real national prominence at the end of 2023, when he represented Trump’s defense to charges brought by Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith, who had accused the former president of election fraud, conspiracy and other offenses that culminated in the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.
He was connected to Trump by Will Scharf, who was working in Missouri with Sauer and has since been designated by Trump to be White House staff secretary.
A courtroom sketch of a White man in a suit arguing in front of the Supreme Court.
In this sketch from court, D. John Sauer argues before the US Supreme Court over whether former President Donald Trump is immune from criminal prosecution in Washington, DC, on Thursday, April 25, 2024. Bill Hennessy
Scharf recounted a call from Trump in August 2023 in an interview with the Missouri Independent, “His legal team was looking to bring on a dedicated appellate team, and the president just called me and asked me if that was something that I was interested in.” Scharf said he, Sauer, and another lawyer “pitched the campaign the way you would pitch any client, and a couple days later, they hired us. And we’ve been working for the president ever since.”
Sauer presented oral arguments before the DC Circuit and then Supreme Court on behalf of Trump. His ardent claims for presidential immunity extended famously in the lower court even to a situation when a president would order Seal Team Six to kill a political opponent.
Before the justices in arguments last April, Sauer defended Trump on constitutional principles, as well as against the specific details of the election-subversion charges.
20240729-roberts-immunity-supreme-court-ruling-gfx-final.jpg
Related article
Exclusive: The inside story of John Roberts and Trump’s immunity win at the Supreme Court
When confronted with the allegations that Trump helped create a “fraudulent slate” of presidential electors in the states, Sauer interjected: “so-called fraudulent electors.” He said referring to them as “fraudulent” amounted to “a complete mischaracterization.”
“On the face of the indictment,” he told the justices, “it appears that there was no deceit about who had emerged from the relevant state conventions, and this was being done as an alternative basis.”
He brushed aside any suggestion of wrongdoing by Trump in the states, despite that Smith’s indictment said Trump had “organized fraudulent slates of electors” to “obstruct the certification of the presidential election.” (State prosecutions related to 2020 fraudulent electors are ongoing.)
Sauer told the justices Trump “absolutely” had a right to put forward alternate Republican electors.
More broadly, Sauer asserted, “Without presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, there can be no presidency as we know it.”
It turned out the Supreme Court, where he could soon regularly appear as solicitor general, agreed.
---
Sources: D. John Sauer Conflicts of Interest - Public Citizen
Sources: D. John Sauer Conflicts of Interest
SCOTUSblog, Trump taps lawyer who argued his immunity case for solicitor general
November 15, 2024
The Kansas City Star, This Missouri lawyer pushed to limit abortion. Now he’s Trump’s solicitor general pickNovember 19, 2024
The Federalist Society, D. John Sauer
---
DEM DOCK9 25
Lindsey Halligan, a lawyer with no prosecutorial experience, was appointed by President Donald Trump Monday as temporary U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Halligan’s appointment marks a dangerous escalation in Trump’s effort to use the power of the U.S. Justice Department to advance his personal and political interests — a push that is spurring intense criticism and alarm among former prosecutors and legal experts.
“Trump wants to skip constitutional safeguards in order to carry out retribution,” one former U.S. attorney told Democracy Docket.
It comes after Erik Seibert was forced out of the post last week amid pressure from the president and senior Trump officials to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James on unproven mortgage fraud allegations. And it follows Trump’s order to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to prosecute his political adversaries, including James, former FBI Director James Comey and U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)
Trump’s scheme has been widely condemned by former DOJ officials. And it has ignited fears that other U.S. attorneys overseeing political investigations will also be threatened with removal for failing to comply with orders from the White House.
Though Siebert resigned in a letter to staff last week, Trump over the weekend claimed he fired Siebert because the prosecutor raised concerns about the legal viability of bringing charges against James.
“He even lied to the media and said he quit, and that we had no case. I fired him, and there is a GREAT CASE, and many lawyers, and legal pundits, say so,” Trump posted on his Truth Social platform after Seibert resigned.
Seibert’s office spent months investigating James but concluded there was insufficient evidence to support bringing criminal charges.
In addition to the James probe, the Eastern District of Virginia is investigating Comey over claims that he lied under oath while testifying before Congress during Trump’s first term.
Trump has repeatedly vowed to seek revenge against James, who won a multi-million dollar judgment against the Trump Organization, and Comey, who has become a prominent Trump critic.
Halligan’s background is in insurance law, but her profile rose among Trump’s inner circle after she joined his defense team during the FBI’s Mar-a-Lago search in 2022. She later became special assistant to Trump, taking on ideological projects such as reviewing federal museums for what Trump called “improper ideology.”
Trump’s order to Bondi, his ouster of Seibert and appointment of Halligan marked an escalation of Trump’s longrunning effort to obliterate DOJ’s independence to use it as an arm of his sprawling revenge campaign against his perceived enemies, former prosecutors have said.
“Trump wants to skip constitutional safeguards in order to carry out retribution,” John McKay, a former U.S. attorney in Seattle who served during the administration of President George W. Bush, told Democracy Docket. “That is unconstitutional. That is unlawful. Everyone should be speaking up about it, especially including the public in nonviolent ways.”
McKay was one of nine U.S. attorneys ousted by the White House for politically motivated reasons during the Bush administration. The scandal led to a congressional investigation and ultimately the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
“In my case, when I was fired by Alberto Gonzales as U.S. attorney in Seattle, they lied about the reason for doing it because they didn’t want anyone to think they were doing it for political reasons,” McKay said. “But now, they’re saying it right out loud. They’re saying, ‘We are doing it for political reasons. That is unlawful. That is unethical. It violates due process. And we have to speak out against it.’”
McKay added that Trump’s directive to Bondi and the forced ouster of Siebert was “characteristic of authoritarianism and fascism.”
“I don’t think Siebert will be the last one to be fired,” Stacey Young, the executive director and founder of Justice Connection, a support network for DOJ alumni, told Democracy Docket “I don’t think this seemingly unqualified nominee is going to be the last unqualified nominee we’ll see,”
“And I’m worried about how far this is going to go,” Young added. “Every prosecutor in the DOJ now understands that if there’s a case where they don’t think they will have enough evidence to convict one of the president’s enemies, they’ll probably be fired too.”
The Society for the Rule of Law Institute, a center-right legal organization founded by prominent former DOJ officials, in a statement denounced Trump’s treatment of Siebert and his weaponization of the Justice Department.
“The resignation of U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert marks a new low point in the ongoing corruption of the Justice Department by a White House intent on using federal resources – not to defend the Constitution and the Rule of Law – but to persecute political critics and reward presidential sycophants,” the Society said.
James’ attorney, Abbe Lowell, called the effort to oust Seibert and replace him with a loyalist “an act of political revenge.”
“The Justice Department has firm policies against using investigations and against using prosecutorial power for achieving political ends,” Lowell said after Seibert submitted his resignation. “This is ever more the case when that demand is made to seek political revenge against a public official in the opposite party.”
The mortgage fraud allegations against James stemmed in part from a preliminary loan document obtained by Bill Pulte, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency who has recently become one of Trump’s favored attack dogs. He has leveled similar accusations against Schiff and Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook, who stands in the way of Trump’s attempted takeover of the central bank.
Trump’s appointment of Halligan is a continuation of his unprecedented move to populate the DOJ with his former attorneys.
In addition to Halligan, Bondi, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Todd Blanche, Solicitor General John Sauer, temporary U.S. Attorney of New Jersey Alina Habba, and temporary U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York John Sarcone are either former Trump defense attorneys or represented his campaign.
Habba and Sarcone are among several loyalists atop U.S. attorneys offices across the country who have taken explicitly partisan actions in their traditionally nonpartisan roles.
Halligan’s appointment came just days after Mary Cleary, a conservative lawyer who recently said she was “framed” for participating in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, unexpectedly said she had been named acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.
The federal statute governing U.S. attorney vacancies holds that Halligan can legally only hold the post for 120 days. However, with other temporary U.S. attorney appointments, most prominently Habba’s, Bondi has attempted to circumvent the 120-day limit by shifting around titles.
Legal experts have warned that the effort has undermined federal law and Congress’ constitutional authority to confirm U.S. attorneys.
“It’s obvious they are trying to manipulate the law to put in place persons they think will be compliant with President Trump’s autocratic impulses,” McKay said. “They’re going to be successful in some cases. They’re going to be unsuccessful in others.”
The Eastern District of Virginia has long handled cases involving espionage, terrorism and political corruption. Now with a loyalist leading it, it may become a weapon to target Trump’s enemies.
---
===
an 2 25
During a confirmation hearing for nominees chosen for high-profile posts within the Department of Justice, two of President Donald Trump's appointees wouldn't rule out disobeying federal court orders.
NBC News reported Wednesday that both Aaron Reitz and Dean John Sauer (who have been nominated as assistant attorney general and solicitor general, respectively) suggested to senators that they may ignore a ruling from a federal judge that they disagree with. While neither Reitz — who is chief of staff to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) — or Sauer outright said they would ignore a ruling, both gave cagey answers and notably didn't once definitively say that they would always abide by judges' decisions.
Sauer in particular hinted that he could disregard future orders, in citing two maligned Supreme Court cases: Korematsu v. United States and Dred Scott v. Sandford. In the Korematsu decision handed down in 1944, the Supreme Court ruled that the government had the right to detain Japanese Americans in remote prison camps. In the 1857 Dred Scott case, the Court ruled that slaves did not have the same protections as citizens and lacked standing to sue in court. Both decisions have been widely regarded as some of the worst in the Supreme Court's history.
READ MORE:'Fake news': Law professor schools JD Vance after he suggests Trump ignore federal judges
"I just wonder whether some historians might think we’d be better off if it [Korematsu] hadn’t been followed," Sauer told Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) during the hearing.
While Democrats and Republicans on the committee were typically divided in their support of Trump's nominees, Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-La.) agreed with Democrats who were concerned about the possibility of DOJ officials disregarding the federal judiciary. NBC reported that Kennedy took a veiled jab at former President Joe Biden's administration in his warning to Reitz and Sauer that they shouldn't entertain the idea of disobeying federal judges. He noted that the federal bench relies on its "legitimacy" as it doesn't have an "army" at the ready to enforce its orders.
“Don’t ever, ever take the position that you’re not going to follow the order of a federal court. Ever. Now, you can disagree with it. Within the bounds of legal ethics you can criticize it. You can appeal it, or you can resign,” Kennedy said. “For four years, I have watched people in this town — not all, not, not everybody — but many try to undermine the legitimacy of the federal judiciary and it triggered each and every time my gag reflex."
Earlier this month, Vice President JD Vance opined that the Trump administration was being unfairly treated by federal judges striking down some of his executive actions, like his order attempting to repeal birthright citizenship (which is guaranteed by the Constitution) and his order freezing federal funds already appropriated by Congress from being disbursed. But the administration appears to already be flouting the latter order, as some nonprofits have said they still can't access federal grant money that had already been approved.
READ MORE:'First of many': Internet erupts after judge blocks Trump's 'blatantly unconstitutional' order
Click here to read NBC's report in full.
===
dean John Sauer (born November 13, 1974) is an American lawyer who previously served as Solicitor General of Missouri and Deputy Attorney General for Special Litigation in the U.S. state of Missouri.
Education
Sauer was born on November 13, 1974. He attended Saint Louis Priory School, a Catholic secondary day school for boys in Creve Coeur, Missouri, run by the Benedictine monks of Saint Louis Abbey. He then attended Duke University, graduating in 1997 with a double Bachelor of Arts in philosophy and Bachelor of Science in electrical engineering. He was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship to attend the University of Oxford, where he received a Bachelor of Arts in theology from Oriel College,[1] and he then earned a Master of Arts in philosophy from the University of Notre Dame.[2]^
Sauer then attended Harvard Law School, where he was an articles editor of the Harvard Law Review. He graduated in 2004 with a Juris Doctor, magna cum laude.[3]^
Legal career[]
After law school, Sauer was a law clerk to Judge J. Michael Luttig of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from 2004 to 2005 and to Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court of the United States from 2005 to 2006.
Sauer worked as a litigation associate at Cooper & Kirk and then became an Assistant United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri. He later reentered private practice.[4]^
In 2015, Sauer defended a priest accused of sexually abusing children. Sauer helped the priest sue his accusers, including the alleged victim's mother.[5] Father Xiu Hui “Joseph” Jiang had been accused of two separate instances of sexual abuse, but prosecutors eventually dropped all charges in both cases. Sauer prevailed in the civil lawsuits related to the accusations.[6]^
In January 2017, then-Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley appointed Sauer Solicitor General of Missouri.[7]^
On December 10, 2020, as Solicitor General Counsel of Record, Sauer signed the "Motion of States of Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, And Utah To Intervene And Proposed Bill of Complaint In Intervention" in an attempt to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election.[8] The motion sought to intervene and join the Texas Bill of Complaint (filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton), to prevent the selection of presidential electors based upon the November election results in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan.[9]
In January 2023, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey appointed Sauer Deputy Attorney General for Special Litigation.[10][11] Sauer resigned from his post less than a month later, on January 27, 2023.[12]
In July 2023. Sauer testified before a U.S. House Subcommittee as the Louisiana Department of Justice Special Assistant Attorney General. ^[13]
Representing Donald Trump[]
On January 9, 2024, he represented former President Donald Trump in oral arguments before a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit regarding the issue of presidential immunity in the criminal case of United States of America v. Donald J. Trump.[14]^
At the hearing, in response to a hypothetical question posed by Judge Florence Y. Pan about whether a U.S. President could order SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival and be immune from prosecution,[15] Sauer argued that the impeachment clause in Article II, Section 4, of the Constitution[16] implies that the Senate must first impeach and convict before a president can be criminally prosecuted, and that acquittal bars prosecution.[17] Sauer stated that this type of prosecution of a former president "would authorize, for example, the indictment of President Biden in the Western District of Texas after he leaves office for mismanaging the border allegedly". ^[18]
---
D. John Sauer has served as the Solicitor General of Missouri since 2017. Before that, he served as a federal prosecutor for five years and spent time in civil practice at boutique law firms, including the firm he founded, the James Otis Law Group. Mr. Sauer has first-chaired many jury and bench trials, and served as lead counsel in many appeals. He has presented oral argument in the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the Supreme Court of Missouri, and many other state and federal appellate courts. Mr. Sauer served as a law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court and Judge J. Michael Luttig of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. He was a Rhodes Scholar and a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School.
Related Cases
Trump v. United States
*
A person listed on this page has spoken or otherwise participated in Federalist Society events, publications, or multimedia presentations. A person's appearance on this list does not imply any other endorsement or relationship between the person and the Federalist Society. In most cases, the biographical information on a person's bio page is provided directly by the person, and the Federalist Society does not edit or otherwise endorse that information. The Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues. All expressions of opinion by a speaker or author are those of the individual.
Past EventsCommentary
Showcase Panel III: Sex, Gender, and the Law
Nov
16
2024
Saturday
9:00 a.m.
EDT
CLE
1.75
hours
Ethics
1.75
hours
Showcase Panel III: Sex, Gender, and the Law
2024 National Lawyers Convention
The Washington Hilton
1919 Connecticut Ave NW
Washington, DC 20009
Speakers:
Jennifer C. Braceras • Doriane Lambelet Coleman • Erin M. Hawley • Andrea R. Lucas • D. John Sauer
more
Topics:
Culture • Civil Rights • Education Policy • Politics • Religious Liberty • Religious Liberties
more
In-Person Event Live Stream
Missouri Supreme Court Review
This event has concluded.
Sep
29
2022
Thursday
4:00 p.m.
CDT
Missouri Supreme Court Review
Kansas City Lawyers Chapter
Lightwell
1100 Main Street
Kansas City, MO 64105
Speakers:
D. John Sauer
Sponsors:
Kansas City Lawyers Chapter
In-Person Event
SCOTUS Roundup with Missouri Solicitor General John Sauer & Co.
This event has concluded.
Jul
13
2022
Wednesday
11:45 a.m.
CDT
SCOTUS Roundup with Missouri Solicitor General John Sauer & Co.
St. Louis Lawyers Chapter
Missouri Athletic Club
405 Washington Avenue
St. Louis, MO 63102
Speakers:
D. John Sauer
Sponsors:
St. Louis Lawyers Chapter
In-Person Event
Panel 2 - Better Believe It: Free Exercise and the First Amendment
Apr
23
2022
Saturday
11:00 a.m.
CDT
Panel 2 - Better Believe It: Free Exercise and the First Amendment
Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library & Museum
212 N. Sixth Street
Springfield, IL 62701
Speakers:
Thomas C. Berg • Justin Edward Butterfield • James C. Ho • D. John Sauer
more
In-Person Event
Litigating the Vaccine Mandates
This event has concluded.
Jan
25
2022
Tuesday
12:45 p.m.
EDT
Litigating the Vaccine Mandates
Harvard Student Chapter
Zoom Webinar -- Harvard Law School
Zoom
Cambridge, MA 02138
Speakers:
D. John Sauer
Topics:
Administrative Law & Regulation
Sponsors:
Harvard Student Chapter
In-Person Event
---
---
DUCK 1 26
America First Legal
https://aflegal.org › litigation
Litigation Archive - America First Legal
Oct 8, 2025America First Legal Litigation Fighting for America First, One Case at a Time Stay informed on our litigation efforts to protect American values and uphold Constitutional rights. Explore detailed case information, access key documents, and stay updated on our latest developments as we fight for true legal equality.
Ethics and Public Policy Center
https://eppc.org › publication › the-brilliant-legal-mind-of-john-sauer
The Brilliant Legal Mind of John Sauer - Ethics & Public Policy Center
It also directly interferes with another cherished First Amendment freedom—the right of citizens to organize to petition the government for redress of grievances. This ongoing distortion of the most fundamental American freedom, the right to free speech, is intolerable under the First Amendment. Written Testimony of D. John Sauer
The Federalist Society
https://fedsoc.org › bio › d-john-sauer
D. John Sauer - Federalist Society
D. John Sauer has served as the Solicitor General of Missouri since 2017. Before that, he served as a federal prosecutor for five years and spent time in civil practice at boutique law firms, including the firm he founded, the James Otis Law Group. Mr. Sauer has first-chaired many jury and bench trials, and served as lead counsel in many appeals.
legalytics.substack.com
https://legalytics.substack.com › p › a-deep-dive-into-trumps-sg-nominee
A Deep Dive into Trump's SG Nominee - Dean John Sauer
Mar 11, 2025As President Trump's next Solicitor General, Dean John Sauer is poised to redefine the office with a bold, unapologetic defense of conservative legal principles.
FIRE | Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
D. John Sauer, the next Solicitor General — the government's SCOTUS ...
Nov 20, 2024It also directly interferes with another cherished First Amendment freedom — the right of citizens to organize to petition the government for redress of grievances. This ongoing distortion of the most fundamental American freedom, the right to free speech, is intolerable under the First Amendment." — Testimony of D. John Sauer (July 20, 2023)
UniCourt
https://unicourt.com › case › pc-db5-casegua665b6afccb5-2085356
AMERICA FIRST LEGAL FOUNDATION v ROBERTS et al - UniCourt
Apr 22, 2025On 04/22/2025 AMERICA FIRST LEGAL FOUNDATION filed a Statutory Right - Freedom Of Information Act court case against ROBERTS in U.S. District Courts. Court records for this case are available from District of Columbia District.
American Enterprise Institute - AEI
https://www.aei.org › op-eds › solicitor-general-john-sauers-predicament
Solicitor General John Sauer's Predicament | American ... - AEI
Apr 21, 2025But Sauer will be under pressure to kowtow to the White House and to the president in particular—in legal arguments, factual representations, and tone—in his arguments before the Court.
trailhead.pldthome.com
trailhead.pldthome.com › blog › d-john-sauer-career-legal
D. John Sauer: Career, Legal Insights, And More
Nov 6, 2025D. John Sauer is a prominent figure in the legal world, known for his expertise and significant contributions to various high-profile cases. This article provides an in-depth look at his career, legal insights, and impact on the legal landscape.
ms.now
Trump's solicitor general stumbled at the Supreme Court. That may not ...
Nov 10, 2025For almost three hours at the Supreme Court on Wednesday, Solicitor General John Sauer struggled to justify President Donald Trump's sweeping use of the tariff power. He f aced tough questions not just from the court's liberals, but from conservative justices such as Neil Gorsuch and
===