President Trump
Donald John TrumpTeachers Union launches 0K ad purchase and calls for education funding in relief FDA pledges ‘we will not cut corners’ on coronavirus vaccine Let’s protect our values COVID-19 liability MAY and Democratic leaders both predict that there will be lawsuits over this weekend’s executive orders to ratify Congress on issues such as payroll taxes and unemployment benefits, but Congressional Democrats are likely not this charge.
Democratic lawmakers have not rushed to court and are likely to face state officials as well as private parties facing legal challenges that could take months or even a year to resolve.
Among their main concerns: the optics.
Democrats worry about what it will look like when they are seen trying to block necessary help for unemployed workers and households struggling to pay their bills during a recession, even if they are totally disagree with Trump going over Congress with executive actions.
Democrats in Congress are also increasingly confident that two of Trump’s most controversial actions over the weekend – his instruction to defer payroll taxes and spend $ 44 billion in disaster relief funds to supplement weekly unemployment benefits – are unworkable will be, making a lawsuit unnecessary.
But even if they decide to prosecute, it is not clear whether the Democratic-controlled House would be recognized as the legal status needed to proceed with a lawsuit challenging Trump’s actions.
The Senate, which is governed by Republicans, also has no plans to file a lawsuit, despite some Republicans like Sen. Ben Sasse
Benjamin (Ben) Eric SasseSasse responds to Trump: ‘America has no kings’ Trump calls for college football season to move forward. The Hill’s 12:30 Report – Trump’s coronavirus executive orders stimulate debate MEE (R-Neb.) Calls Trump’s mandate “unconstitutional slop.”
Asked Monday if House Democrats plan to file a lawsuit, the House of Representatives leads Charles Schumer
Chuck SchumerTo save the Postal Service, bring it online White House officials, Democrats save on legality, substantial of executive orders Schumer refuses to say whether Trump’s executive orders are legal: They ‘do not’ work ‘anymore (DN.Y.) marked the opinion of the Democrats that the executive orders are flawed until it is almost ineffective.
“The bottom line is the executive orders – I agree with Sasse that they are unconstitutional slum – but the bottom line is even if they are here, they will not do what is necessary or even get close,” Schumer said.
Schumer told reporters last week that there would likely be a lawsuit against Trump’s executive orders, but did not say who the complainants may be.
A spokesman for Speaker Nancy Pelosi
Nancy PelosiTeachers Union launches 0K ad buy calls for funding for education in relief No signs of breakthrough for stalemate talks on coronavirus Managers air frustrations with Trump over unemployment plans MAY (D-Calif.) Did not respond to a request for comment on whether Democrats would file a lawsuit.
Trump administration officials claim they are on solid legal grounds.
“We have removed all these actions with the Office of Legal Counsel,” Secretary of Treasury Steven Mnuchin
Steven Terner MnuchinTeachers union launches 0K ad buy calls for funding for education in relief What Trump’s orders will and will not do for tax services, unemployment benefits No signs of breakthrough for stalled talks with coronavirus MORE said on “Fox News Sunday.“” If the Democrats want to challenge us in court and keep unemployment benefits to those hard-working Americans who are out of a job because of COVID, they’ll have a lot of work to do. “
Sen. Chris Van Hollen
Christopher (Chris) Van HollenExclusive: Democrats try to increase racial diversity from surveillance board to pandemic relief. Day defense: Guardsman to witness the removal of Lafayette Square was ‘unprovoked escalation’ | Dems push for controversial Pentagon nominee to withdraw Watchdog says Pentagon does not consider climate change risks for entrepreneurs Democrats are pushing for a controversial Pentagon nominee policy to withdraw MORE (D-Md.) Said Monday that Democrats are more concerned about additional federal aid to people suffering from the pandemic than a thought of a legal strategy to block Trump in court.
“I think the focus right now should be on providing relief to the American people, and I think that will be the focus of House and Senate Democrats,” he said.
“There are constitutional issues with this, but we should concentrate on the fact that it does not provide the kind of relief that is needed,” he added.
Trump took four actions over the weekend.
He instructed the Treasury Department to stop collecting payroll taxes until Dec. 31. For workers earning less than $ 104,000 a year; he called on fired workers to receive $ 400 a week to pay off $ 44 billion in funding at the Department of Homeland Security for disaster relief; he called on the Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar to study whether an eviction ban is necessary; and he instructed that interest on student loans be held by the federal government through Dec. 31.
Trump told reporters Friday at his golf club in Bedminster, NJ, that he expected to sue, but predicted he would come out victorious.
Legal experts note that while the courts can act quickly if they choose, they can also move very slowly.
“It depends on how quickly the courts want it litigated. We know that if courts want to do things on a fast-track basis, they certainly can. Look at Bush v. Gore as the case of Pentagon Papers, ”said Erwin Chemerinsky, a professor of constitutional law at the University of California, Berkeley.
“On the other hand, look at the legal action of the severance clause that began on January 23, 2017, and is still in its early stages,” he added.
It was not until May that the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a lawsuit based on the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, which challenges the president’s ownership of Trump International Hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue.
Judges are often reluctant to intervene in such a high-profile battle between the White House and Congress so close to an election that could determine which party controls each branch of government.
Democrats are relying on Trump’s orders, which were unveiled long before courts would rule them unconstitutionally.
They predict the suspension of payroll tax will not provide any economic benefit, as employers will withhold these taxes from payment defaults, so they will have it on hand when the federal government’s bill finally arrives.
While Trump has promised to make a permanent payroll tax cut once he is re-elected, employers are unlikely to roll the dice.
“It’s much more show than substance,” Van Hollen said. “He says that by the end of December, employers can withhold part of the employee tax or not.”
“They will owe all that money back,” Van Hollen said, referring to workers. “We have already heard this from employers. Under the law, the employer is legally responsible for both the employer’s share and the employee’s share. So if at the end of the day that employee does not repay it to the system, then the employer is on the line, which is a big dissent. “
Traditionally, workers pay a 6.2 percent tax on pay that goes to Social Security, which employers agree to pay by a 6.2 percent tax. However, if employees are allowed to keep their full pay without keeping one for Social Security, then the employer is on the hook to pay it all back to the government when the period of extension expires.
Democrats claim that Trump’s new unemployment benefit is equally problematic.
Trump’s decision to pay unemployed workers $ 400 a week from disaster relief funding – with $ 100 from states – would require the implementation of a new benefits system that could take months to start up.
‘It looks like an unemployment insurance benefit, it smells like one, but it’s absolutely not one. It’s a very different program, ”said Michele Evermore, senior policy analyst at the National Employment Law Project, a group that publishes research on labor issues.
‘Because it’s not a benefit for unemployment insurance, state [unemployment insurance] systems cannot afford it with their regular administrative funding, “she said, adding” it will take a while “before states can introduce the new program.
For Democratic lawmakers, there is the tricky question of who the courts will recognize as having a good legal status to challenge Trump’s executive actions, which could further delay all legal battles.
‘It is not entirely clear how this would form. The Supreme Court is skeptical about the entry of Congress and sues over every little thing that concerns them, ‘said David A. Super, a constitutional rights expert at the University of Georgetown.
Super notes that the Supreme Court ruled against Congress that had legal status to challenge the veto in the line item in 1997 in Raines v. Byrd, although it was illegally constituted later that year in Clinton v. State of New York, arising out of a lawsuit filed by hospitals and health care unions that were directly affected by the line item’s veto.
Super says that successful successes against Trump’s executive actions are more likely to come from a state than a private party.
“I think Congress is not particularly afraid of being an act of law, and these things affect so many other people that in practice someone else jumps into court,” he said.
The whole controversy could be secured if White House negotiators and congressional leaders find a way to reach a deal on a broader legislative package that would replace Trump’s executive orders – though it is unlikely the deal would include the payment tax suspension that Trump has. ordered over the weekend.
William Arnone, chief executive officer of the nonpartisan National Academy of Social Insurance, said groups are awaiting guidance from the Treasury Department on Trump’s instruction to suspend workers’ taxes.
“We’re looking at a very different range of strategies,” he said. ‘I think the president himself said he expects to be in court over all these executive orders because there is still a bit of a question mark over how far he can go.
“It’s still in the air,” Arnone added.
.
