Why the White House decided even the conservative Federalist Society isn’t good enough

Donald Trump’s trade tariffs strategy has been largely based on a questionable legal footing, with the belief that an “emergency” permits the president to unilaterally impose economic sanctions based solely on his discretion. Recently, this foundation has been challenged by two court rulings – one from the Court of International Trade and another from a U.S. district court – declaring the White House’s actions as unlawful. While these rulings were temporarily halted by an appeals court, they marked significant setbacks for Trump on a key policy issue.

In response to these legal defeats, the president and his team criticized the judicial system for intervening in matters concerning his agenda. However, a notable complication arose when one of the judges who ruled against the administration was appointed by Trump and confirmed by Senate Republicans, creating a political dilemma.

Subsequently, Trump directed sharp criticism towards conservative legal activist Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society, a conservative organization that has played a crucial role in recommending judicial nominees. The president expressed disappointment in the organization for providing advice on judicial nominations that he deemed unfavorable.

As Trump faces resistance from some of his appointed judges, he is shifting away from the Federalist Society’s recommendations for future judicial nominations. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller accused the organization of creating a “broken system” and announced that they will no longer rely on the Federalist Society for selecting judges in the future. The president’s response to these legal setbacks and his plans for judicial nominations going forward remain topics of interest.