Get the latest market trends in your inbox

Stay on top of the latest market trends and economic insights with the Axios Markets newsletter. Sign up for free.

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday

Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Denver news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Denver

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Des Moines news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Des Moines

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Minneapolis-St. Paul news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Minneapolis-St. Paul

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Tampa-St. Petersburg news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Tampa-St. Petersburg

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Photo: Samuel Corum/Getty Images

The Trump administration has consistently tried to get controversial cases in front of the Supreme Court as quickly as possible — but not when that might have meant striking down the entire Affordable Care Act before the 2020 election.

Why it matters: Trump’s Justice Department has tried to leapfrog the traditional process far more than its predecessors did, and at least one Supreme Court justice seems to be worried that it’s affecting the court’s work.

  • “It appears the Government has treated this exceptional mechanism as a new normal,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a dissenting opinion last fall. “Not long ago, the Court resisted the shortcut the Government now invites. I regret that my colleagues have not exercised the same restraint here.”

How it works: Legal challenges to federal law typically go through three steps: a district court, then an appeals court, and finally an appeal to the Supreme Court.

  • The Supreme Court almost never takes a case until it’s been decided by a lower appeals court. It can make exceptions, but those exceptions are rare.

But the Justice Department under President Trump has routinely asked the high court to step in before appeals courts have had a chance to rule.

  • It sought expedited Supreme Court action in lawsuits over the administration’s travel ban, its efforts to end the DACA immigration program, its changes to the 2020 Census, and the Pentagon’s ban on transgender troops.
  • The Obama administration, by comparison, only sought this expedited process once, in the litigation over the federal ban on same-sex marriage.

In many of those cases, the Trump administration has argued that lower-court rulings invalidating a federal policy are simply too pressing to leave to the normal process, which can take years.

Yes, but: In the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act — in which a district court judge struck down the entire health care law — the Justice Department urged the Supreme Court not to expedite a hearing.

  • The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals hasn’t reached a definitive conclusion on whether the district court ruling was right or wrong.
  • But in this case, the Trump administration wants to let the lower-court process run its course — which, incidentally, will push an eventual Supreme Court ruling past the 2020 election.
  • “This is just the latest example, to me, of the seeming inconsistency in the federal government's position toward the need for expedition in the Supreme Court,” said Steve Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas who recently wrote a Harvard Law Review article about these timing considerations.

The big picture: Expedition isn’t always wrong, legal experts say. And in the ACA case, nothing out of the ordinary is happening.

It’s the selectivity with which DOJ seeks to expedite some cases, while letting others play out on a longer timeline, has raised some eyebrows.

  • “It’s easy to look at the pattern and find a lot of political calculations as opposed to legal ones,” Vladeck said.

In the Census case, for example, a faster timeline wasn’t particularly controversial. The government needed to start printing Census forms, and it needed a definitive answer on whether those forms could or couldn’t include a question about citizenship.

  • So it made sense to get the final say — the Supreme Court’s say — relatively quickly.
  • But others, including the administration’s attempts to end DACA, are a lot more comparable to the ACA. There doesn’t necessarily have to be a ticking clock forcing a faster-than-usual process.

The bottom line: “This is an administration that has no problem arguing that any time a federal statute is enjoined, the government suffers irreparable harm. They’ve argued that more often than any other administration,” Vladeck said. “But when it’s a statute they don’t like, they don’t seem to be in nearly as much of a tizzy.”

Go deeper

10 hours ago - World

Maximum pressure campaign escalates with Fakhrizadeh killing

Photo: Fars News Agency via AP

The assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, the architect of Iran’s military nuclear program, is a new height in the maximum pressure campaign led by the Trump administration and the Netanyahu government against Iran.

Why it matters: It exceeds the capture of the Iranian nuclear archives by the Mossad, and the sabotage in the advanced centrifuge facility in Natanz.

Scoop: Biden weighs retired General Lloyd Austin for Pentagon chief

Lloyd Austin testifying before Congress in 2015. Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Joe Biden is considering retired four-star General Lloyd Austin as his nominee for defense secretary, adding him to a shortlist that includes Jeh Johnson, Tammy Duckworth and Michele Flournoy, two sources with direct knowledge of the decision-making tell Axios.

Why it matters: A nominee for Pentagon chief was noticeably absent when the president-elect rolled out his national security team Tuesday. Flournoy had been widely seen as the likely pick, but Axios is told other factors — race, experience, Biden's comfort level — have come into play.

Updated 12 hours ago - Politics & Policy

Coronavirus dashboard

Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios

  1. Health: WHO: AstraZeneca vaccine must be evaluated on "more than a press release."
  2. Politics: Supreme Court backs religious groups on New York COVID restrictions.
  3. World: Thailand, Philippines sign deal with AstraZeneca for vaccine.
  4. Economy: Safety nets to disappear in December Black Friday shopping across the U.S., in photosAmazon hires 1,400 workers a day throughout pandemic.
  5. Education: National standardized tests delayed until 2022.