The real reason the Supreme Court is terrified
Are they afraid Trump will get them killed?
Ninety years ago, President Franklin D. Roosevelt fired William E. Humphrey from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Humphrey sued to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the Constitution had never given “illimitable power of removal” to the president and that he couldn’t fire Humphrey. The case is called Humphrey’s Executor v US — Humphrey got his job back.
Here is an excerpts from the article “The Real Reason the Supreme Court is Terrified” by Thom Hartmann.
Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S. (1935)
Set clear precedent protecting agency such as FTC, Supreme Court of USA, independence from executive control.
Trump v. Wilcox
SCOTUS let Trump remove FTC Commissioner Slaughter, ignoring Humphrey’s precedent.
Violates precedent; defers power to Trump without legal rationale; undermines agency independence.
Justice Kagan’s Dissent
Criticized use of the emergency (“shadow”) docket to override precedent and shift power to the president.
Warns of erosion of checks and balances, judicial transparency, and public trust.
Judge Michael Luttig’s Warning
Said the Court is “spellbound” by Trump, betraying the Constitution.
Suggests ideological or fear-based capture of SCOTUS by Trump.
Possibility 1: Corruption
Some justices (e.g., Thomas, Alito) tied to rightwing billionaires like Leonard Leo.
Raises ethical concerns over judicial impartiality and outside influence.
Possibility 2: Ideological Extremism
Justices may be committed to radical right-wing goals aligned with Trump.
Suggests they are not neutral interpreters of the law, but political actors.
Possibility 3: Fear of Trump
Judges fear violent retaliation from Trump supporters.
Physical fear may be influencing judicial behavior—a serious threat to judicial independence.
Roy Den Hollander Case (2020)
Pro-Trump extremist killed Judge Salas’s son.
Sparked widespread intimidation of judges—psychological warfare.
Threat Campaigns
“Daniel Anderl” pizzas sent to judges’ homes; threats and harassment common.
Intimidation tactic linking to prior violence; shows judges are actively being terrorized.
Judge McConnell’s Experience
Received hundreds of death threats after ruling against Trump.
Demonstrates direct consequences of opposing Trump legally.
Shadow Docket Use
Series of major rulings issued with no hearing or explanation.
Undermines transparency, judicial consistency, and public understanding.
Notable Shadow Docket Cases in 2025
US v. Shilling – Ban on transgender troops upheld.
OPM v. AFGE – Civil service protections removed.
Dept. of Ed. v. California – DEI retaliation allowed.
Noem v. National TPS Alliance – Protection removed for Venezuelans.
Noem v. Svitlana Doe – Ended humanitarian parole.
Trump v. CASA de Maryland – Attacked birthright citizenship.
Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo – Racial profiling allowed.
All favor Trump’s policies.
No arguments heard or legal reasoning given.
Dissenting justices expressed outrage.
Why Use Shadow Docket?
Temporary rulings are reversible post-Trump.
Justices may think they’re minimizing long-term damage while avoiding retaliation.
Credibility Crisis
Court’s legitimacy relies on public trust, not enforcement power.
Erosion of trust in SCOTUS could collapse judicial authority.
Cultural Shift in Respect for Rule of Law
Trump’s public attacks on judges normalize judicial harassment.
Sets a dangerous precedent where the judiciary must fear ruling impartially.
Final Thesis
Justices are more likely ruled by fear than ideology or bribery.
If true, U.S. constitutional order is under grave threat from intimidation.
Summary Takeaway:
Supreme Court’s repeated use of the shadow docket to benefit Trump, often against clear precedent and without legal justification, is not merely ideological or corrupt — it may be driven by personal fear of violent retaliation from Trump’s supporters.
This dynamic is reshaping the Court’s behavior and potentially undermining the very foundations of constitutional law and separation of powers in the U.S.
STATUS of Temporary Protected Status (as of late 2025) for various countries
Country Approx. Number of TPS Holders Current Legal Status Recent Court / DHS Action Expiration / Next Review Notes / Key Context
Venezuela ~600,000 ❌ At risk
Supreme Court (Oct 2025) lifted injunction; DHS may end TPS.
Expiring Nov 7, 2025, unless re-designated or blocked again.
Ruling followed NTPSA v. Noem shadow-docket order; immediate risk of deportation.
Honduras ~80,000 ⚠️ In limbo
Ninth Circuit (Aug 2025) allowed termination to proceed.
Set to expire Sept 8, 2025. Termination reinstated after 9th Circuit overturned district court stay.
Nicaragua ~5,000 ⚠️ In limbo Same as Honduras; linked case. Sept 8, 2025 Awaiting possible Supreme Court appeal.
Nepal ~7,000 ⚠️ Terminated (contested, expected decision 18 November 2025)
Ninth Circuit (Aug 2025) vacated lower court injunction.
TPS ended Aug 5, 2025, unless re-designated. National TPS Alliance appealing; advocates claim APA violation.
Haiti ~60,000 ⚖️ Protected (for now) District court ruling (Sept 2025) found DHS termination unlawful under APA. Current designation through Feb 2026. Same legal reasoning as Venezuela but no Supreme Court stay yet.
El Salvador ~200,000 ✅ Protected DHS extension (June 2023) remains in effect. Valid until June 2025, renewal likely under DHS review. Ongoing litigation paused pending policy review.
Syria ~6,500 ✅ Protected DHS redesignated TPS due to ongoing armed conflict. Extended to Sept 2026. Longest continuous TPS extension; humanitarian crisis ongoing.
Sudan ~3,000 ✅ Protected DHS redesignated in 2023. Valid until Oct 2025. DHS cited escalating conflict and human rights violations.
Somalia ~500 ✅ Protected DHS extended and redesignated in 2023. Valid until March 2026. Active civil conflict continues.
Ukraine ~25,000 ✅ Protected DHS extended (April 2024). Valid until Oct 2025, likely to be renewed. War with Russia ongoing; bipartisan support for renewal.
Afghanistan ~4,000 ✅ Protected DHS redesignated in 2024. Valid until Nov 2025. Humanitarian crisis and Taliban control cited.
Cameroon ~2,000 ✅ Protected TPS redesignated in 2023. Valid until Dec 2025. DHS cited armed conflict and political instability.
=================================================================================
⚖️ Legal and Policy Summary
Supreme Court Actions Shadow-docket stay (Oct 2025) allowed DHS to terminate TPS for Venezuelans, setting precedent for similar cases (e.g., Nepal, Honduras, Nicaragua).
Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
Central issue in most TPS terminations — courts are split on whether DHS met procedural standards.
Humanitarian Review
DHS retains discretion to re-designate countries; extensions depend on political and foreign policy factors.
Biden Administration
Position Initially extended most Trump-era terminations in 2023; current administration’s stance may shift following 2025 court rulings.
Advocacy Response
National TPS Alliance and ACLU-led coalitions preparing new challenges and lobbying for permanent residency legislation (American Promise Act).
================================================================================
🌍 At a Glance: TPS Continuity Score (2025)
Category Countries Status Score (0–10)
Secure / Long-Term TPS
Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Cameroon 8–10
Strong DHS humanitarian rationale and bipartisan support.
Legally Unstable / At Risk
Venezuela, Nepal (expected decision 18 Nov 2025), Honduras, Nicaragua, Haiti 3–6
Court stays lifted or pending; APA and political challenges ongoing, (expected decision 18 Nov 2025 for Nepal and few other countries).
Stable (Administrative Renewal Expected)
El Salvador 7 Renewal likely due to large population and humanitarian grounds.
Last edited: 06-Oct-25 10:27 AM
Last edited: 06-Oct-25 10:35 AM
Last edited: 06-Oct-25 10:38 AM
Last edited: 06-Oct-25 10:44 AM
Last edited: 06-Oct-25 10:45 AM
