President Donald Trump recently announced a directive that could fundamentally alter political power in the United States. He has ordered the Commerce Department to begin work on a new, mid-decade census. The primary goal of this new Trump Census Order is to explicitly exclude undocumented immigrants from the population count that determines congressional representation. This move immediately sparked outrage from civil rights groups and Democratic leaders. Consequently, they have labeled it unconstitutional and are preparing for a major legal battle. This executive action reignites a contentious fight from the president's first term. It also has massive implications for states with large immigrant populations, particularly California. Understanding the order's directives, its potential impact, and the strong legal arguments against it is crucial.  

What the Trump Census Order Aims to Do

In a social media post, President Trump stated he had instructed the Department of Commerce to work on a "new and highly accurate CENSUS." He explicitly declared, "People who are in our Country illegally WILL NOT BE COUNTED IN THE CENSUS." The U.S. Constitution mandates a full census every 10 years. However, federal law does permit mid-decade surveys for statistical purposes. The law generally forbids using these mid-decade counts for reapportioning seats in the House of Representatives. The president's directive appears to challenge this. Ultimately, it aims to create a new apportionment base before the 2026 midterm elections.  

The Goal: Reshaping the Electoral Map

The administration's objective is clear. It wants to change how congressional districts and Electoral College votes are distributed among the states. For over 200 years, the established method has been based on the total number of residents in each state, regardless of citizenship. Excluding undocumented immigrants would cause a significant shift in political power. It would move power away from states with large immigrant populations.

• Impact on States: A Pew Research Center analysis from a previous attempt at this policy found that excluding undocumented immigrants would likely cause California, Texas, and Florida to each lose a congressional seat.
• Redistricting Battles: This order also arrives amid fierce partisan battles over redistricting. A new population count could give some states a legal basis to redraw their congressional maps to favor one party.

The Constitutional Conflict with the Trump Census Order

The central legal challenge to the Trump Census Order is the U.S. Constitution itself. Critics argue the order directly violates the plain language of the 14th Amendment.  

The 14th Amendment's "Whole Number of Persons" Clause

Section 2 of the 14th Amendment states, "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State..." For centuries, courts and the Census Bureau have interpreted "whole number of persons" to mean every resident. This includes non-citizens. Opponents argue the president cannot unilaterally change this constitutional mandate.  

Previous Legal Fights

During his first term, President Trump made two major efforts to alter the census:

1. Adding a Citizenship Question: In 2019, the Supreme Court blocked his administration from adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census.
2. The 2020 Exclusion Memo: Later, in 2020, he issued a memorandum to exclude undocumented immigrants from the apportionment count. Courts blocked this illegal plan.

President Biden rescinded that memo. However, President Trump has now revived the policy.  

The Legal Road Ahead for the Trump Census Order

Legal experts and civil rights organizations promise swift lawsuits to block this new order. Groups like the ACLU have previously fought similar efforts. They argue that such moves are an unconstitutional attack on immigrant communities. The legal arguments will likely focus on several key points:

• The order violates the 14th Amendment.
• The president is exceeding his executive authority.
• The order is arbitrary and lacks a sound legal or logistical basis.

How This Affects Californians

For California, the stakes in this fight are immense. Our state is home to the largest immigrant population in the country. Excluding residents from the census count would have severe consequences.

• Loss of Representation: California would almost certainly lose at least one seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. This would diminish the state's voice in Congress.
• Reduced Federal Funding: Billions of dollars in federal funding support critical services like healthcare, schools, and roads. An undercount would mean California receives a smaller share of these federal funds, impacting every resident.

How KAASS LAW Can Help

The new Trump Census Order creates a climate of fear, particularly within immigrant communities. While national organizations will fight this constitutional battle, its effects are personal. At KAASS LAW, our attorneys are dedicated to protecting the rights of individuals and families. Our Immigration practice helps clients navigate the complex U.S. immigration system. We understand policies like this can have a chilling effect. We provide clear, confidential advice to help our clients understand their rights. If you have questions about your immigration status, please Contact Us for a consultation.  

Conclusion

The Trump Census Order to exclude undocumented immigrants directly challenges the Constitution. It aims to fundamentally reshape political power. Furthermore, it threatens California's representation and federal funding. While the order's legality is highly questionable, it guarantees an immediate and fierce legal battle. The outcome will have lasting implications for the meaning of representation in our democracy

A recent political controversy has renewed attention on a key part of the U.S. government: federal courts. House Speaker Mike Johnson suggested that Congress might dismantle certain courts that rule against former President Donald Trump. This statement raised immediate concerns about judicial independence and the balance of powers outlined in the Constitution.

In this article, we will explore who controls federal courts, what authority Congress holds over them, and why judicial independence is essential for American democracy.

What Are Federal Courts?

Federal courts are part of the judicial branch of the U.S. government. They are responsible for interpreting laws, resolving disputes, and protecting constitutional rights. There are three main levels of federal courts:

1. District Courts – where most federal trials begin.
2. Courts of Appeals – which review decisions made in district courts.
3. The U.S. Supreme Court is the highest federal court in the country.

Importantly, all federal courts except the Supreme Court are created by Congress under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, federal judges serve lifetime terms, which helps ensure that they remain independent and impartial.

Who Has Authority Over Federal Courts?

The Constitution clearly outlines authority in Article III, Section 1, which states:

“The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”

In other words, while the Supreme Court is permanent and required by the Constitution, Congress has full authority to create, structure, or eliminate the lower federal courts. Moreover, Congress determines how many judgeships exist, what cases each court may hear, and the structure of each court system.

However, that authority has limits. For example:

• Congress cannot eliminate the Supreme Court.
• Congress cannot fire judges over political disagreements.
• Congress cannot reduce judicial salaries to pressure judges.

Instead, if Congress wants to remove a judge, it must use the impeachment process, which requires a majority vote in the House and a two-thirds vote in the Senate.

Can Congress Eliminate Federal Courts?

Lower federal courts exist at the discretion of Congress, which can choose to terminate them through its constructive authority. The institutions that the government established through its power of creation can be dismantled or reorganized by the same authorities.

The passing of the Judiciary Act of 1801 repeal bill in 1802 led to the abolition of newly implemented circuit courts by Congress. Congress adjusts both court numbers and judge counts according to changing caseload conditions and administrative requirements. Establishments modify lower federal courts through practical changes that stay away from political issues.

The removal of courts for safeguarding ex-president Donald Trump would potentially violate the U.S. Constitution. A court elimination move under these circumstances would probably qualify as power abuse, which would encounter multiple legal challenges. In this case, intent matters. The act breaks constitutional principles when performed to obstruct justice or intimidate judicial personnel.

What Did Mike Johnson Say?

According to The Guardian, House Speaker Mike Johnson floated the idea of eliminating certain courts that continue to rule against Donald Trump. Not surprisingly, legal scholars and former judges condemned the statement. They warned that using congressional authority in this way would undermine the independence of the judiciary and weaken public trust in the legal system.

Moreover, many viewed Johnson’s remarks as a direct threat to judicial neutrality. Courts must remain free to rule based on law, not political convenience. Otherwise, they risk becoming tools of political retaliation.

Why Judicial Independence Matters

Functional democracies need judicial independence as their basic operating parameter. Judges need complete freedom when they decide cases based only on laws and constitutional principles. Based on this principle, the Constitution gives judges permanent positions and guaranteed salaries to secure their independence from political oppression.

All judges would face imminent threats because members of the legislature could seek to eliminate courts after every disagreement over rulings. Confidence in legal operations would gradually diminish when these conditions continued. The public would stop believing that courts operate in unbiased ways about important political decisions.

Checks and Balances in Action

The U.S. government was built on a system of checks and balances, with three separate branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. Each branch has distinct powers and limits, designed to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful.

Consequently, Congress must exercise caution when altering the structure of the courts. If lawmakers eliminate courts for political reasons, they risk upsetting the balance of power. In extreme cases, this could even lead to a constitutional crisis.

Historical Perspective

The American government's developers established a balanced system of power between three distinct branches named legislative, executive, and judicial. The government maintains specific powers that belong to different branches of government to stop any individual branch from gaining absolute dominance. Congress needs to carefully consider any changes it makes to court organization.

The structure of power between branches becomes unbalanced when legislators initiate court eliminations for political purposes. The situation may escalate to a constitutional crisis with such actions.

Call KAASS LAW today!

Federal courts are not merely political bodies—they are protectors of the Constitution, enforcers of the law, and defenders of civil liberties. While Congress does have authority over the lower courts, this power comes with responsibility.

At KAASS LAW, we believe that any attack on judicial independence is an attack on democracy itself. The judiciary must remain impartial, insulated from political interference, and committed to upholding the rule of law. You can also check our blog section for relevant topics.

A sweeping executive order signed by President Trump on March 25th aims to overhaul U.S. elections, consequently sparking immediate legal challenges. Central to the controversy is the Trump Election Order Citizenship proof requirement, a mandate detailed within the directive. Furthermore, the order dictates changes to ballot deadlines and voting systems, citing a need to enforce election protections. However, critics immediately denounced the move, calling it an unconstitutional executive overreach. As a result, lawsuits challenging its validity have already been filed.

According to CBS News, this order represents a major attempt to assert federal control over election administration. Individual states traditionally manage this area. Let's discuss the details of this executive action.

Key Mandates of the Trump Election Order Citizenship Directive

President Trump's executive action details several major changes and directives aimed at reshaping election processes:

• Documentary Proof of Citizenship: Firstly, the order seeks to require individuals provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship. This proof would be needed when registering to vote in federal elections. While this aligns with past Republican efforts like the proposed SAVE Act, this attempts implementation via executive action, not Congress.
• Ballot Receipt Deadline: In addition, it demands all ballots be received by Election Day to count. Consequently, this could invalidate ballots mailed by the deadline but arriving later, even though many states currently allow for this.
• Federal Data Sharing: Moreover, the order directs federal agencies to share data with state election officials. Specifically, agencies like Homeland Security, the Social Security Administration, and the State Department are tasked with this. The stated goal is helping states identify and remove noncitizens from voter rolls.
• Voting System Guidelines: The directive also calls on the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to amend its guidelines. For instance, it includes prioritizing systems with paper records and potentially discouraging using barcodes or QR codes for vote counting, which could affect states like Georgia.
• Conditional Funding: Finally, the order threatens to withhold federal funding. This applies to states and election jurisdictions not complying with these new directives, adding significant pressure.

Stated Rationale vs. Reality

The executive order claims the U.S. failed "to enforce basic and necessary election protections," mentioning non-citizen registration and late ballots. Indeed, President Trump argued that the order would secure the vote against illegal voting by noncitizens.

However, critics and multiple studies disagree strongly. They point out that noncitizen voting in federal elections is already illegal and documented as exceedingly rare. Similarly, concerns about widespread mail voting fraud are largely unsubstantiated, despite being a focus of criticism. Therefore, voting rights groups argue that the new requirements are simply unnecessary barriers.

Impact on Voters and Access

The proof-of-citizenship requirement, specifically, raises serious concerns about voter disenfranchisement. For example, a 2023 report cited by news outlets (from groups including the Brennan Center for Justice) estimates about 9% of voting-age U.S. citizens lack readily available proof documents. This represents around 21.3 million people.

Furthermore, issues may also arise for married women whose proof-of-citizenship documents list maiden names different from their current registered name. Reports indicate similar problems occurred in states like New Hampshire after implementing comparable state-level laws. Consequently, these potential hurdles could affect certain groups disproportionately and create confusion.

Constitutional Questions Raised by the Trump Election Order Citizenship Mandate

The executive order faces immediate, significant legal hurdles. These center primarily on the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, the Constitution's Elections Clause grants states primary authority. States determine the "times, places and manner" of conducting elections. While Congress has override power, the President generally does not possess this authority directly.

Hence, critics argue the Trump Election Order Citizenship rule and other mandates are unlawful. Legal experts and Democratic officials, such as Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, call it federal overreach. They also label it an unconstitutional assertion of presidential power.

Reflecting these constitutional concerns, a lawsuit was quickly filed. The Campaign Legal Center and the State Democracy Defenders Fund filed suit in D.C. federal court representing several voter advocacy groups. As reported by the Associated Press, the lawsuit seeks to block the order. It argues the order violates the Constitution and infringes on voting rights. Undoubtedly, more legal challenges are expected.

Divided Reactions to the Trump Election Order Citizenship Rule

Predictably, reactions to the executive order show a clear partisan split:

• Opposition: Democrats and voting rights advocates strongly condemned the order. For instance, Rep. Joe Morelle called it "immoral and illegal." Similarly, Jena Griswold termed it an "unlawful weaponization of the federal government." They argue it aims to make voting harder.
• Support: On the other hand, some Republicans praised the move. Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, for example, called it a "great first step for election integrity reform nationwide." Likewise, Rep. Bryan Steil, a key House Republican overseeing elections, welcomed it as an action to "secure our elections."

How KAASS LAW Can Help

Navigating the complexities of how federal actions might impact individual rights requires careful legal understanding. While challenges to federal executive orders often involve specialized constitutional law, the effects of such orders can sometimes raise questions related to other areas. KAASS LAW assists clients in California across various practice areas where rights may be implicated, including potential issues related to Discrimination. If you have legal concerns within our areas of practice, we invite you to Contact Us for a consultation.

Conclusion: Uncertainty and Legal Battles Ahead

President Trump's executive order attempts major changes to U.S. elections, mandating proof of citizenship for voting and altering ballot deadlines. While framed as enhancing election integrity, the Trump Election Order Citizenship requirement drew strong criticism. Concerns include potential voter disenfranchisement and infringing on states' constitutional authority.

Consequently, with lawsuits already filed and more anticipated, the order's future is highly uncertain. Its implementation faces significant legal battles. Ultimately, the core conflict remains federal directives versus state control over elections. This issue will likely play out in courtrooms soon.

Explore the impact of Trump’s executive order on immigration, healthcare, environmental policy, and trade. Learn about legal challenges, lobbying efforts, and the long-term consequences of this influential presidential action

 The Power of Executive Order in U.S. Government

An executive order is a powerful tool used by U.S. presidents to direct federal government operations and influence a wide range of policies. This order can have far-reaching implications for industries, organizations, and individuals across the nation. When President Donald Trump issued numerous executive orders, they sparked intense debates and legal challenges. Understanding the ramifications of this executive order is crucial for businesses and individuals who may be impacted by it.

What is the Executive Order?

An executive order is a directive issued by the President of the United States to manage the operations of the federal government. Executive order have the power to shape policies, enforce laws, and direct federal agencies. While they do not require congressional approval, they are subject to judicial review. Courts can rule that an executive order is unconstitutional if it exceeds the president’s authority. For more details on official executive orders, visit the U.S. Government Publishing Office.

Immigration and the Travel Ban: Legal Battles and Policy Shifts of Executive Order

One of the most controversial executive orders issued by President Trump was the travel ban on several Muslim-majority countries. Executive order aimed to enhance national security by restricting entry from certain countries. The decision of executive orders faced massive legal challenges, with multiple courts blocking the ban before a revised version was ultimately upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Impact of the Executive Orders on Immigrants and the U.S. Economy

The travel ban created uncertainty for immigrants, international students, and businesses dependent on foreign talent. The restrictions affected industries like technology and academia, where many professionals and researchers come from countries targeted by the ban. In particular, tech companies faced challenges hiring workers with specialized skills from countries like Iran, Syria, and Libya.

Legal Challenges to the Travel Ban

The travel ban sparked numerous lawsuits. Opponents argued that it violated constitutional rights, such as the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom. Despite the opposition, the revised version of the order was eventually upheld, marking a significant moment in the ongoing legal and political debate surrounding executive power.

Healthcare Reforms: Executive Orders to Dismantle the ACA

President Trump’s executive orders targeted the Affordable Care Act (ACA), with the aim of dismantling specific provisions. Among these reforms, the elimination of the individual mandate and the expansion of short-term health plans that did not meet ACA standards were the most prominent changes.

Impact of ACA Reforms

These reforms created uncertainty in the healthcare market. Insurers, healthcare providers, and consumers all experienced disruptions. The removal of the individual mandate reduced the number of people required to have insurance, which could lead to higher premiums for those who remained in the system.This uncertainty left many Americans questioning the future of their healthcare coverage.

Legal Challenges to ACA Reforms

Many states and advocacy groups filed lawsuits to challenge the legality of Trump’s executive orders on healthcare. They argued that the orders undermined protections for individuals with pre-existing conditions, a key provision of the ACA. These legal battles are ongoing, and their outcomes will determine the future of U.S. healthcare policy.

Environmental Deregulation: Executive Orders to Roll Back Protections

Trump’s executive orders focused on reducing environmental regulations, particularly in the fossil fuel sector. The administration’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement and roll back regulations on emissions from power plants were part of a broader effort to promote energy independence.

Impact of Environmental Deregulation

These executive orders were met with resistance from environmentalists, renewable energy companies, and state governments that relied on federal environmental protections. Critics argued that deregulation would lead to environmental degradation and threaten public health. However, executive orders proponents of deregulation argued that these policies would lead to job creation and economic growth in the energy sector.

Lobbying Efforts for Deregulation

Fossil fuel industries and related organizations were among the most vocal proponents of these executive orders. They lobbied for the removal of regulations, arguing that it would help boost production and create jobs in the energy sector. On the other hand, renewable energy companies and environmental groups lobbied against the orders, urging the government to preserve protections for the environment.

Trade Policies: Tariffs and Executive Orders on International Trade

Trump’s administration used executive orders to impose tariffs on foreign goods, particularly from China. The broader trade strategy aimed to protect American industries and reduce the trade deficit through these tariffs.

Impact of Tariffs on U.S. Industries

While some U.S. manufacturers benefited from the protectionist policies, other industries were adversely affected by retaliatory tariffs. For example, the agricultural sector, particularly farmers, faced challenges when foreign countries imposed tariffs on American crops and goods. The agricultural industry lobbied strongly against these tariffs, as they threatened their export markets and profitability.

Lobbying Efforts Surrounding Tariffs

The tariffs on foreign goods created a division of opinion among U.S. industries. Some manufacturers lobbied for tariffs, claiming that they would protect American jobs and industries from foreign competition. On the other hand, industries like agriculture and technology, which rely heavily on exports, lobbied against the tariffs. They argued that these policies would harm their international sales and hurt American workers.

The Role of Lobbying in Shaping Executive Orders

Lobbying plays a significant role in shaping the policies implemented by executive orders. Interest groups, industries, and organizations actively engage with the administration to influence policy decisions. Whether advocating for deregulation in the energy sector or opposing tariffs in the agricultural sector, lobbying efforts are often critical in determining the final form of executive orders.

Legal Challenges and the Long-Term Impact of Executive Orders

Many of Trump’s executive orders faced legal challenges, highlighting the power of the judicial branch to review and potentially block presidential actions. Courts determined whether the orders exceeded the president’s constitutional authority or violated the rights of individuals and groups affected by them.

The long-term impact of these legal challenges will shape future executive orders, as well as the balance of power between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government.

 Navigating the Impact of Executive Orders

Executive orders have wide-ranging effects on U.S. policies and industries. From immigration and healthcare to the environment and trade, these orders can reshape the legal landscape and create significant uncertainty for businesses and individuals. At KAASS LAW, we specialize in navigating the complexities of executive orders and the legal challenges they present. Our experienced attorneys can help you understand your rights and obligations under these executive orders.

The concept of birthright citizenship, a big part of American identity since the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868, has once again become a subject of intense national debate. The current President recently issued an executive order seeking to significantly curtail birthright citizenship. As a result, this is igniting a firestorm of legal challenges and raising fundamental questions about citizenship, immigration, and the very definition of who is an American. At KAASS LAW, we believe in upholding the principles of due process and equal protection under the law. the following aims to provide a neutral and informative analysis of the President's executive order on birthright citizenship, exploring its key provisions, the legal arguments for and against it, and the potential implications for individuals and families.

Understanding Birthright Citizenship

Birthright citizenship, also known as jus soli, is the principle that any person born within the borders of a country automatically acquires citizenship of that country, regardless of the parents' citizenship or immigration status. In the United States, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution enshrines this right, stating, section 1: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."   

The President's Executive Order: Key Provisions

The President's executive order seeks to redefine the scope of birthright citizenship by reinterpreting the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th Amendment. The order asserts that children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents are not automatically granted citizenship. Specifically, the order targets:

• Children born to undocumented immigrants: The order explicitly denies birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are undocumented immigrants.
• Children born to parents with temporary legal status: The order also excludes children born to parents who are in the U.S. on temporary visas, such as tourist visas or student visas.

Legal Arguments For and Against the Order

The President's executive order has sparked a fierce legal battle, with proponents and opponents offering contrasting interpretations of the 14th Amendment and its historical context:

Arguments in Favor of the Order:

• Original Intent: Proponents argue that the framers of the 14th Amendment did not intend to grant birthright citizenship to children born to individuals who were not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, such as those residing in the country unlawfully.
• National Sovereignty: They contend that birthright citizenship encourages illegal immigration. Furthermore, this undermines national sovereignty by granting citizenship to children whose parents have not followed legal immigration procedures.
• Global Comparisons: Supporters point out that many other countries do not have birthright citizenship policies. They further argue that the U.S. should align its laws with international norms.

Arguments Against the Order:

• Plain Language of the 14th Amendment: Opponents argue that the plain language of the 14th Amendment is clear and unambiguous. As a result, this will be granting citizenship to all persons born in the U.S.
• Historical Precedent: They cite Supreme Court rulings, such as United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which affirmed the principle of birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents.
• Separation of Powers: Critics contend that the President does not have the authority to unilaterally redefine a constitutional right. This, they argue, is a matter for Congress to decide through legislative action.

Potential Implications and Uncertainties

The legal challenges to the President's executive order are ongoing, and the outcome remains uncertain. If upheld, the order could have significant implications for:

• Families and Children: Children born in the U.S. to undocumented or temporary visa-holding parents would be denied citizenship. This can potentially create a class of stateless individuals and causing significant hardship for families.
• Immigration Policy: The order could lead to increased immigration enforcement and detention of families. As well as greater difficulty for undocumented individuals to adjust their status in the future.
• National Identity: The debate over birthright citizenship raises fundamental questions about American identity. Furthermore, seeking the meaning of citizenship in a diverse and evolving society.

KAASS LAW: Navigating the Complexities of Immigration Law

At KAASS LAW, we recognize the profound impact of the President's executive order on individuals, families, and communities. We are committed to staying alert on legal developments surrounding this issue, such as the DOJ's halt of legal aid in immigration court. Additionally, we strive on providing our clients with accurate and timely information. If you have questions about birthright citizenship or any other immigration-related matter, contact us today for a consultation. Our experienced immigration attorneys can provide guidance and support as you navigate the complexities of the U.S. immigration system.

Jimmy Carter (1924-2024)

With the recent news of his passing, Former President Jimmy Carter was the 39th Elected President of the United States from 1977 to 1981. Awarded a Nobel Peace Prize back in 2002, the late President Carter was known for finding peaceful resolutions throughout the international scope, but just as equally important, within our states towards the American People. His goal during his presidency, between 1977 and 1981, was to strive towards justice reformation so it could help promote economic growth and social development. While he was only a first-term president, he managed to get plenty of things done! He is famous for committing to resolving any international issues at hand. With the crisis in Iran when the Soviets attacked Afghanistan, the Late President stood his ground and provided every form of diplomacy to resolve these issues. The following will focus on Jimmy Carte’s impact on US Law, but first, here is a quick history of our 39th Elect. 

Brief Summarization 

Jimmy Carter, born in Plains, Georgia, was a devoted Christian god-fearing man and was a loving father of three children. He graduated from the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. After several years of being a naval officer, he went back to Georgia to start his political career. After successful election, he became the Governor of Georgia in the 1970s, he brought a lot of attention as a young Georgian Governor for focusing a lot on ecology, government efficiency, and the removal of racial barriers. He picked up momentum after he announced his candidacy for being the next US President. Eventually, he won, with 297 electoral votes, to 241 votes for the current President at that time, Gerald R. Ford. During that time, he was considered a political “outsider,” but he pledged to restore morality after the controversial Vietnam and Watergate scandals. Public opinion shifted against the government around this period.

Diversity in the Judicial System

In the four years of presidency in office, he was the first to bring a “number of women and people of color being named to serve on the federal bench…”. Oddly enough, he never appointed judges in the US Supreme Court Justice. He did however appointed 262 life-tenured judges to the lower courts. This was significant due to the fact that the people he appointed were people of color and or women. I.e., Ruth Bader Ginsburg; may she rest in peace. “As president, Jimmy Carter recognized the devastating lack of representation in our federal courts and prioritized diversifying the judiciary, Maya Wiley, the head of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said in a statement.” In addition to reforming and diversifying the justice system, he was a big proponent of getting Congress to sign Carter’s Energy Policies. 

Carter’s Energy Policies

In 1973, there was a crisis of energy prices going up due to the Arab oil embargo. Four years later, the impact was rippling through the economy. In response to the problem, the late President made an attempt to address the situation in one of his speeches. Jimmy Carter called it “the moral equivalent of war.” He asked the American people to start conserving energy. He then created a plan to reduce the usage of fossil fuels and focused on domestic technology. This is an attempt to look for alternative energy. Eventually, after months of trying to convince Congress, here are some key components that passed: 

• National Energy Conservation Policy Act:  Energy conservation in buildings and appliances.
• Power Plant and Industrial Fuel Use Act: Restriction on natural gas and petroleum in power plants.
• Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act:  Promote energy conservation and the use of renewable energy 
• Energy Tax Act: Tax incentives to promote renewable energy
• Natural Gas Policy Act: Gave the President authority to declare natural gas emergencies if the country is dealing with a gas shortage within the country. 

The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984

Carter’s Administration placed an emphasis on criminal justice reform. He addressed the issues of over-incarceration and the prison system, which was being overlooked. As such, the law passed: “Sets forth a new sentencing structure applicable to a defendant who is found guilty of an offense under any Federal statute. Permits an individual to be sentenced to a term of imprisonment or probation and a fine and to receive additional sanctions, including: (1) forfeiture for certain racketeering crimes and drug-related offenses. (2) an order of notice to victims of crimes in cases involving fraud or deceptive practices. (3) an order of restitution in cases involving bodily injury or property damage. Permits an organization to receive these penalties, with the exception of imprisonment.” While some may argue that this act needed some more work, his Administration took a major shift in approaching sentencing. 

Conclusion

Jimmy Carter’s impact on US law is constantly debated. Some argue that his work wasn’t enough. Others argue that he was there for the people on a high-moral level. But one thing is certain, he was and still is likable and most people respect him. He may or may not have been the best President with his foreign-policies. Also, his attempts to fix US domestic issues may not have been perfect. Yet, it is clear that he was trying to be a good person.  Here at KAASS LAW, we understand making the right decisions and aim to do the right thing for everyone, including our clients.  Please contact us today if you are seeking legal advice and or need legal representation.