Authored by Jonathan Turley via Jonathan Turley,
Below is my column in The Hill on the latest controversy from the chambers of Judge Indira Talwani. While the court could be upheld in halting the executive order on mail-in balloting in this case, Talwani is one of a number of jurists who have been habitual blockers of executive reforms and policies. Talwani has been criticized in the past as something of a one-stop option for forum-shoppers. Her record reaffirms the rationale for justices in using the emergency docket, or so-called "shadow docket," to deter gaming the system.
Here is the column:
This week, the Trump administration found itself in a familiar position: facing an injunction from Judge Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Indeed, it had just secured an order from the Supreme Court on its emergency docket lifting her earlier injunction on the U.S. Postal Service requiring voting lists to confirm U.S. citizenship.
The case against the executive order on mail-in ballots has reasonable arguments on both sides, although (as I have said previously) the challengers are likely to prevail in defeating the rule or at least delaying the policy until after the midterm elections. The Constitution gives states the primary responsibility over "the times, places, and manner of holding elections."
However, the U.S. Postal Service is a federal agency, and the federal government does have a role in the funding and regulation of federal elections. More importantly, the Trump administration is arguing that it is not barring mail-in voting but merely imposing "modest informational requirements." Non-citizens cannot vote in federal elections, and the new rule "does not displace a single state election law. And it need not and should not prevent a single voter from voting by mail."
The controversy over Talwani is not necessarily the merits of her decision that the rule convenes the constitutional framework. Indeed, the Supreme Court did not rule on the merits and could well rule in favor of her interpretation.
The controversy is the pattern of sweeping injunctions by Talwani and a few other judges.
Litigants have been accused of forum-shopping by going to liberal, Democratically appointed judges to prevent Trump policies from being implemented in a wide array of areas, including immigration, elections, reduction in government bureaucracies, and foreign aid.
Like her colleague in Boston, U.S. District Court Judge Brian Murphy, Talwani is viewed by many as a one-stop-shop judge for forum-shopping. Both have issued hair-trigger injunctions, and both have been repeatedly reversed.
Talwani was reversed on Aug. 24 for imposing an injunction against the mail-in balloting policy. Her injunction was taken to be premature and without a legal injury, since the administration had not issued a formal rule. The truth is, the challengers had her at hello. She did not wait for a showing of a cognizable injury before issuing another injunction, because the decision appeared made before the case hit her own docket.
Previously, Talwani showed the same inclination in other cases.
For example, she issued an injunction against revoking the humanitarian parole program for hundreds of thousands of immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Her order was lifted on appeal.
She also issued an injunction to stop the Trump Administration from defunding Planned Parenthood. That order was also set aside on appeal.
Regardless of the outcome of this latest injunction, Talwani has offered the strongest case in favor of the expanded use of the emergency docket, also known as the "shadow docket." Liberal law professors and litigants have bewailed the expanded use of this docket at the Supreme Court to resolve cases without the need for a long briefing and oral argument. However, judges like Talwani have created legitimate concerns over the use of the appellate system to slow or freeze new policies. This is why the "shadow docket" has become more prominent.
This year, confidential memoranda were leaked from the court on the use of the emergency docket and published by the New York Times. It was only the latest such strategic leak from a court that was once the paragon of confidentiality and civility.
The internal exchanges of the justices were illuminating as to the majority's underlying reason for allowing this fast-track review. The immediate issue was a move by the Environmental Protection Agency to impose unlawful regulatory burdens on electric utilities despite a countervailing earlier ruling in Michigan v. EPA. Chief Justice Roberts believed (as did many) that the EPA was using the ongoing litigation to force utilities to spend billions of dollars to comply with new regulations that the Supreme Court had already rejected.
"In other words," Roberts wrote, "the absence of stay allowed the agency to effectively implement an important program we held to be contrary to law."
As with the national injunctions that plagued the Trump administration in its first year, this tactic was all too familiar. Litigants would go to liberal judges in Washington, Boston, and other blue cities to secure injunctions that would take years to fully litigate. That approach effectively allowed individual judges to pursue their own preferred policies or to prevent a president from carrying out promises made during an election. At most, the president might have a year left after these cases slogged through the conventional appellate process. It is an administrative version of the old adage that "justice delayed is justice denied."
What concerned the justices was that many of these injunctions directly contravened earlier precedent, exposing the cynical purpose of these orders. For a president to be able to carry out major changes, he had to run a gauntlet of hundreds of judges, any one of whom could effectively negate reforms. In response, the Supreme Court ramped up the use of the emergency docket and cracked down on national injunctions, quickly reversing the rapidly increasing number of injunctions against the Trump administration.
With the midterm elections rapidly approaching, the odds favor challengers in either running out the clock or prevailing on the merits on the mail-in ballots. But Talwani and some other judges have reinforced suspicions of the Roberts court that some courts are willing allies of partisan groups in seeking to gum up the system.
Ironically, Roberts is one of the most likely conservative justices to be concerned with the Trump administration's effort to force election integrity reforms on the states. Either way, it is the shadow of these judges, not the docket, that is casting the most ominous concern for many of the Supreme Court justices.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of "Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution."
Tyler Durden Mon, 08/31/2026 - 20:55A number of US military top generals have taken the rare step of formally registering warnings to Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth over potential plans for a new phase of strikes against a non-compliant Iran.
The warnings reportedly emerged through the Secretary of Defense Orders Book, which enumerates the availability of US military resources and force posture around the world - with direct input from American regional commanders.
via ReutersThe book is typically published twice a month, but this time it was reportedly filled with pushback by those overseeing operations in Latin America, Europe and Asia - who have seen training missions canceled, and ships and aircraft diverted to the Middle East for counter-Iran operations.
The Washington Post reported over the weekend that a chief complaint by the top officers was that the Iran conflict "has degraded their ability to fulfill homeland-defense obligations."
Amid fresh troop movements based on new orders reportedly issued in mid-August, commanders made clear they do not agree with the new force trajectory, but are ready to carry out the Commander-in-Chief's orders regardless.
Still, the leaking of this information, and such a rare public airing of grievances, has Hegseth and the Trump administration furious. The Washington Post reports:
The Aug. 14 orders book directs some troops deployed in the Middle East to remain there through September and some others into 2027, said those familiar with the document. The prospect of extending those forces further compelled military leaders to voice their concern, these people said.
Leaders of the U.S. European Command, the U.S. Pacific Command and the U.S. Southern Command, along with the Navy’s top admiral, responded with what is characterized in the SDOB as a “non-concur,” those familiar with the assessment said — meaning they disagree with the secretary’s order to extend their forces but will execute it nevertheless.
Another key line from generals cited in the WaPo reporting is that the Iran war - which the Trump White House early on had promised would be 'swift' - has been "too much for too long".
Some pundits are warning that this alleged rare leak is an alarming sign Trump could be preparing to do something 'big'...
I'm telling you guys and gals here: Trump is getting ready to something batshit crazy--which is why the generals and admirals are leaking SDOB to the WaPo. They're FREAKING OUT because it's obvious that Trump and his team are going to make them do something nutty. https://t.co/nc0tLcj0b6
— Brandon Weichert (@WeTheBrandon) August 31, 2026That section from the WaPo report reads as follows:
Army and Air Force leadership concurred with Hegseth’s desire to extend their deployed forces, but each emphasized that doing so would come with significant risk, these people said.
Overall, the tenor from the military leadership is that the ongoing Iran operation, having reached the six-month mark, has been “too much for too long,” said one person familiar with the assessment.
The military’s warning to Hegseth, which has not been previously reported, offers new insight into the administration’s dilemma as Trump seeks to end the conflict on terms favorable to the United States while Iran, cognizant of the war’s unpopularity with most Americans and its mounting toll on the U.S. arsenal, refuses to capitulate.
As expected, the Pentagon has responded by calling it fake news and saying that leakers of classified information will be sought and dealt with.
"This fake news, poorly sourced reporting is full of inaccuracies," Chief Pentagon Spokesman Sean Parnell said in a statement. More from Parnell on X:
Publishing highly classified assessments from the Secretary’s orders book is a crime.
It’s a betrayal of the force.
And much of what they’re publishing is inaccurate.
Of course, we demand candid military advice. Non-concurs are standard. The Secretary sees them constantly. That’s… https://t.co/Jgc4GzdXcU
He added: "Decisions regarding the scope and duration of specific force commitments to any Combatant Command are made based on the current threat assessment, strategic priorities established by the President, and the advice of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Combatant Commanders. However, the Department of War does not discuss internal operational processes, including the Secretary of War Orders Book (SWOB), or specific concurrences, non-concurrences, or risk assessments provided by the Services or Combatant Commands during force allocation deliberations."
But the reality is that this conflict is a full six months in, and the generals are perhaps keenly aware it is now in quagmire stage, with no plans for an exit or final strategic 'mission accomplished' vision in sight. Meanwhile, every escalation in the Persian Gulf tends to beget more escalation. What's the endgame here?
Tyler Durden Mon, 08/31/2026 - 20:30Army Secretary Dan Driscoll is out. Early Monday evening The Wall Street Journal is the first to break the news, describing that he submitted his resignation to President Trump, following months of tensions with Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth.
Some national security sources have already been quoted as saying the development is "unsurprising" - with the WSJ writing that "Driscoll had been expected to step down this year from his role as the civilian leader of the Army after clashing with Hegseth."
via Associated PressWhite House spokesperson Anna Kelly has confirmed that Driscoll resigned. It comes just days after the Iran war hit the six month mark, with no apparent exit strategy articulated by the White House or military leadership.
"Secretary Driscoll has been highly effective in advancing President Trump’s agenda to Make America Strong Again at the Department of the Army by providing outstanding leadership during historic military operations, restoring an emphasis on readiness and lethality, assisting with negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, and more," Kelly said in a statement.
There could be more high-level resignations at the Pentagon to come, amid several simultaneous controversies gripping internal Department of War ranks over several months. To review:
On this latter front, the Journal presents some of the latest developments as follows:
Last week, Driscoll attended the retirement ceremony at Fort Bragg for Gen. Chris Donahue, who served as the top Army officer in Europe until Hegseth downgraded his position, effectively bringing an end to his military career.
Donahue’s abrupt departure was presented as part of Hegseth’s broader push to shrink the number of generals and admirals by 10% overall, plus a 20% cut to the number of four-star positions, the Journal reported.
Hegseth's efforts at bringing radical change to the Pentagon has resulted in huge, rare frictions between his office and top generals and admirals across the globe, particularly centered on questions of force readiness and future vision and doctrine.
"Driscoll brought up concerns with the administration surrounding Army transformation and readiness and Hegseth's blocking those efforts specifically by firing the Generals who were responsible," the source said. https://t.co/sO1r6dYkZ7
— Idrees Ali (@idreesali114) August 31, 2026There are some political dynamics as well, with WSJ also noting that "Driscoll is a former law school classmate of Vice President JD Vance. A former Army officer, he forged a close relationship with George, the former Army chief of staff who was fired by Hegseth in April. The two pushed soldiers to adopt new technology and become more adaptable battlefield threats."
So all this further seems bound up with personalities, loyalties, as well as contrasting visions for the future of America's armed forces. It should be noted that Driscoll as a Vance-ally was probably - just like the Vice President - deeply skeptical of many of the Trump's administration's Iran-related decisions.
Tyler Durden Mon, 08/31/2026 - 20:05