Levey said that it’s highly unusual for courts to be involved in impeachment proceedings. However, in extreme circumstances, legal and constitutional grounds might exist, he said. “This would be an extreme example, but if the House began sending articles of impeachment to force a Senate trial once per month, at some point courts would say this is unreasonable,” Levey said. “This would be unreasonable abuse, and tying up the executive branch. It could interfere with separation of powers.”
The recent Texas state verdict that Title Source misappropriated proprietary data from former collaborator HouseCanary underscores the rise of trade secrets lawsuits along with growing settlements and jury awards, says Ashley Baker of the Committee for Justice.
Ashley Baker discusses the impact of two recent Supreme Court decisions that have produced a “sea change in intellectual property litigation” as well as a “a serious challenge to software patentability” on the issue of exposing confidential trade secrets.
Contrary to popular belief, Citizens United did not let loose the dogs of corporate political warfare. As Committee for Justice President Curt Levey explained, this decision left most of the limits on political spending in place. "The total ban on corporate contributions to candidates, political parties, and political action committees remains in place," he explained.
Still, it likely will take years to fully evaluate whether Mr. Trump truly transformed the 9th Circuit, said Curt Levey, president of the Committee of Justice, which promotes constitutionalist positions on legal and policy issues. He noted that most senior Republican-appointed judges aren’t as conservative as Mr. Trump’s picks because senators used to be able to block federal appeals court nominees.
It’s a political question. Democrats are fond of saying that Trump violates democratic norms. But, impeaching a president over disagreements with the legislative branch and playing games with the Senate over impeachment also violates norms.
In a Federalist Society podcast, Ashley Baker and Jennifer Huddleston discuss the implications of [Carpenter v. United States], in which the Supreme Court decided that the warrant-less seizure of the plaintiff’s cell phone records violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
There could be another bite at the apple later. The current ruling is related to a preliminary injunction which, while binding the government while the case is being heard, is not a final decision on the merits. Without an appeal, the case now goes back to the federal district court in Washington.