<div class="sailthru-signup-widget sailthru-signup-display-area sailthru-signup-hill-position-main"> <span class="sailthru-signup-widget-close"><a href="#sailthru-signup-widget">Close</a></span> <div class="sailthru_form"> <div class="sailthru-signup-success-message" hidden="hidden">  <p class="thanks">Thank you for signing up!</p> <p class="watch">Subscribe to more newsletters <a href="http://nxslink.thehill.com/join/7aa/signup">here</a></p> </div> <div class="sailthru-subscribe-grid-display"> <div class="sailthru-signup-display-message-wrapper">  <div class="sailthru-signup-display-message"> <span>The latest in politics and policy.

Direct to your inbox. Sign up for the The Gavel newsletter

A chasm has emerged between two Texas Republican Senate candidates in the legal fight    against Democrats who fled the state to block a redistricting push. 

State GOP leaders are pushing several courts to clear the way for lawmakers to achieve a quorum and pass a new House map. 

It has also become a shadow war in the state’s upcoming Senate GOP primary. 

Incumbent Sen. John Cornyn went to the Texas Supreme Court to accuse his conservative primary challenger, state Attorney General Ken Paxton, of having “undercut efforts to bring legislators back to Texas.” 

Paxton is now trading barbs with his rival, pushing back that he only “whines all day on X.” 

The fracas began after Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) last Tuesday launched a petition at the state’s high court aiming to declare the runaway Democrats’ seats vacant.  

Paxton has sought to defeat it by insisting his office has the right to lead the charge, not Abbott’s. But Paxton wanted to wait until the state speaker’s Friday deadline for Democrats to return. 

“While the Attorney General appreciates the Governor’s passion for ensuring that the Texas House reestablishes the quorum that is necessary to discharge the important business of the Legislature, this Court’s precedent is clear that a ‘quo warranto’ proceeding ‘can only be brought by the attorney general, a county attorney, or a district attorney,” Paxton’s office wrote in court filings. 

It gave Cornyn, who faces his biggest political fight of his life yet with Paxton’s primary challenge, an opening. 

In a two-page friend-of-the-court brief  — signed by Cornyn personally rather than a lawyer— the senator condemned Paxton for having “delayed taking action to remove the absconding legislators.” 

“Finally, after further delay, the Attorney General today duplicated the Governor’s petition in this Court—in some instances word for word—but then sought an individualized writ on behalf of a purported class of respondents,” Cornyn wrote. 

“Surprisingly, the Attorney General again invites delay by suggesting this Court should give absconded Democrats more time  — ‘48 hours’ after issuance of any decision— to consider their options,” he continued. 

The move comes as Cornyn broadly leans into Texas’ redistricting fight, hoping to fend off the primary challenge from his right. Most polls show him consistently trailing Paxton, but a flood of outside groups are pouring in money to boost Cornyn. 

“John Cornyn has been an absolute clown this week with his Paxton Derangement Syndrome. But using his official office to attack me in the TX Supreme Court for working to enforce warrants in other states takes the cake. This man is spiraling,” Paxton responded on X. 

Paxton has also highlighted his office’s victory in convincing a judge to block former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas) from financially supporting the Democrats who left the state. On Tuesday, Paxton accused O’Rourke of violating the order and pushed for him to be held in contempt of court and sent to jail. 

The Texas Supreme Court, meanwhile, is now weighing both the governor and attorney general’s petitions seeking to declare Democrats’ seats vacant. On Monday, the court set a briefing schedule through Sept. 4. 

Paxton has also escalated his efforts by trying to reach across state lines. 

With Democrats having fled to California and Illinois, Paxton has filed legal complaints in both states seeking to initiate contempt proceedings against the absent lawmakers. 

“Restoration of functional representative democracy, as evidenced by 250 years of American history, is the best and only way to resolve policy disputes,” reads the California complaint, which was announced Saturday. 

“The public acts of Texas to restore that democratic process are entitled under the United States Constitution to full faith and credit from California,” it continues. 

Cornyn, however, decried the move a “Hail Mary.” 

Welcome to The Gavel, The Hill’s weekly courts newsletter. Ella is off this week. I’m Zach Schonfeld. Reach out to me on X (@ZachASchonfeld) or Signal (zachschonfeld.48) with news tips. Not on the list? Sign up here or using the box below. 

 Trump flexes D.C. National Guard’s unique setup 

President Trump is flexing his power over the D.C. National Guard, whose unique structure provides Trump with heightened authority compared to state units. 

Unlike in Los Angeles, where Trump had to wrest control from California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) to deploy troops, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) does not command the city’s National Guard. 

The guardsmen instead are always under the president’s control, enabling Trump to quickly deploy 800 troops to the nation’s capital. 

And the distinct setup in D.C. also impacts what the troops can do on the ground. 

When the president federalizes a state’s National Guard unit, the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act generally bars those troops from participating in domestic civil law enforcement. 

It’s a battle playing out in California, where U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer this week is holding a bench trial to determine whether Trump violated it when deploying the National Guard to Los Angles to combat immigration protests. 

Newsom contends that troops ran afoul of the statute when they moved away from guarding federal buildings in downtown to protecting immigration agents during raids.  

But if you ask the Justice Department, regardless of the answer, it doesn’t impact D.C. 

A 1989 opinion from DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel states that the Posse Comitatus Act doesn’t apply to the D.C. National Guard because the president doesn’t actually federalize the troops. The issue had come up as the guard looked to get more involved in local drug law enforcement efforts. 

“The described use of the District of Columbia National Guard is not prohibited by the Posse Comitatus Act because that Act does not apply to a National Guard acting as a militia,” wrote Douglas Kmiec, who led the office at the time. The conservative lawyer later gained fame for endorsing former President Obama in 2008. 

As Trump sends in the National Guard, is also flexing his legal authority over D.C. to take over the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). Trump did so by invoking an emergency provision of the D.C. Home Rule Act, the 1970s law giving D.C. control over its local affairs. 

D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb (D) called Trump’s move “unlawful” and said he was “considering all of our options.” Democracy Forward, one of the most prolific filers of lawsuits against the Trump administration, similarly said they were “considering legal options.” 

But it remains unclear whether they’ll have grounds to sue. 

The provision Trump cites, Section 740, allows him to take over MPD “whenever” he “determines that special conditions of an emergency nature exist” that require the force be used for federal purposes. 

In other cases involving emergency powers, the administration has repeatedly taken the position that judges owe deference to the president or have no authority to second guess his emergency findings. 

So even as Schwalb and other city leaders condemn Trump’s assertion of a “crime emergency” and point to data indicating violent crime is dropping this year in D.C., the courts may not be able delve into those arguments.  

That reality appears to have set in for Bowser, D.C.’s mayor. At her Monday press conference, she pointed to that language in the Home Rule Act when asked if she would mount a legal challenge. 

“It authorizes the president to make those requests, and it says the mayor shall comply with those requests,” Bowser cautioned. 

Trump ratchets up pressure on universities 

The Trump administration is ratcheting up the pressure on elite universities as it hopes to secure nine- or even ten-figure settlements. 

At Harvard University, the only college to directly take on Trump in court over his efforts, no settlement has yet materialized despite the president saying in June that a deal was close. 

The New York Times reported Monday that Harvard was again nearing a deal with the administration that could amount to $500 million. 

As rumors swirl, the administration opened a new front of the battle on Friday by commencing an investigation into the school’s patents. 

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick wrote a letter to Harvard President Alan Garber indicating the Commerce Department was reviewing whether Harvard was complying with the Bayh-Dole Act, which governs patents derived from federally funded research. 

“We believe that Harvard has failed to live up to its obligations to the American taxpayer and is in breach of the statutory, regulatory, and contractual requirements tied to Harvard’s federally funded research programs and intellectual property arising therefrom, including patents,” Lutnick wrote in the letter. 

It’s now a third prong of the increasing pressure on Harvard. The school is already suing the administration for freezing roughly $2.2 billion in federal grants and rescinding the school’s ability to host international students. 

Last week, the Justice Department said it wanted to “simplify” the latter case.  

Court records show the administration agreed to not enforce a May Department of Homeland Security letter revoking Harvard’s certification to enroll international students, the initial focus of the school’s lawsuit. However, it would still leave in place Trump’s June proclamation that similarly sought to curtail international enrollment. 

“Defendants also made clear that they were open to counterproposals and a meet and confer. Plaintiff did not accept,” the Justice Department wrote in the filing. 

Harvard did not return a request for comment. 

After Harvard declined to agree, the administration on Friday filed a 33-page motion to dismiss the case. 

“All of Harvard’s constitutional claims against the Proclamation fail at the outset,” it reads. 

U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs, an Obama appointee who serves in Boston, has blocked Trump’s proclamation as the litigation continues. She is still weighing whether the block the funding freeze after holding a hearing last month. 

Meanwhile, the administration is setting its eyes on other schools. In recent weeks, the administration has pulled $584 million in grants to the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and is seeking a $1 billion settlement. 

The school doesn’t appear ready to accept it. 

“As a public university, we are stewards of taxpayer resources and a payment of this scale would completely devastate our country’s greatest public university system as well as inflict great harm on our students and all Californians,” University of California President James Milliken said in a statement. 

The proposed UCLA and Harvard deals would far exceed the amounts that Trump has secured so far. Columbia University agreed to pay a $200 million fine to the government plus an additional $21 million to settle civil rights investigation. Brown University reached a deal that requires it to pay $50 million. 

New schools are entering the crossfire, too. On Tuesday, the Justice Department said The George Washington University is in violation of federal civil rights law and described it as “deliberately indifferent” to antisemitism on campus.   

5 top docket updates 

1. Judge keeps secret Maxwell grand jury materials: A federal judge in New York rejected the Justice Department’s request to unseal grand jury materials used to charge Ghislaine Maxwell, the longtime accomplice of Jeffrey Epstein.  

2. Minnesota suspect pleads not guilty: The man accused of shooting two Minnesota state lawmakers and their spouses, killing one of the couples, pleaded not guilty to six federal charges Thursday. 

3. Jewish museum shooting suspect indicted: A grand jury last week indicted the man accused of gunning down two Israeli embassy staffers outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C. Prosecutors brought new hate crime charges and began laying the groundwork for him to potentially face the death penalty.

4. Student newspaper sues Trump admin: The Stanford Daily sued the Trump administration last Wednesday after student visa holders who write for the paper self-censored their writings about the Israel-Gaza war over fears they would be deported. 

5. Democracy group funds restored: A federal judge ruled Monday that the Trump administration is illegally withholding funds from the National Endowment for Democracy. 
    
   In other news 

Cases the Supreme Court is taking up —  or passing on —  next term. 

OUT: The Supreme Court is still in its summer recess, but we wanted to bring you a new update on one case. 

The justices this past term were set to consider Department of Education v. Career Colleges and Schools of Texas, the Biden administration’s defense of its rule easing students’ ability to receive debt forgiveness if they were defrauded by their college. 

Soon after Trump took office, the proceedings ground to a halt as his administration reassessed its position. But in May, Solicitor General D. John Sauer said the Education Department wished to proceed, so the court resumed the case. It was set to be heard this upcoming term. 

Now, the case has taken a turn once again. 

The “One Big Beautiful Bill” contained a provision stating the borrower defense provision  “shall not be in effect” for loans that originate before July 1, 2035, and restored the regulations that were in effect before Biden became president. 

“Because that intervening legislation bears on the issues in this case, petitioners intend to dismiss this case,” Sauer told the Supreme Court Friday. 

And just like that, the case is gone. The court on Monday issued its formal, one-sentence order dismissing it. 

Don’t be surprised if additional hearings are scheduled throughout the week. But here’s 
what we’re watching for now: 
 
Today: 

Thursday:

 Friday: 

Monday:

 Tuesday: 

1. The Vineyard Gazette’s Gwyn Skiles and Addison Antonoff: During Vineyard Visit, Supreme Court Justice Delves into Her Roots 

1. The New York Times’s Michael C. Bender: The Harvard-Trained Lawyer Behind Trump’s Fight Against Top Universities 

1. The Hill’s Julia Shapero: ‘Bizarre’ Nvidia, AMD chip export deal with Trump raises legal questions 

1. Professor Adam Feldman on Substack: The Most Powerful Dissents in the 2024–2025 Supreme Court Term 

1. ABC News’ Peter Charalambous: Meet the Native American tribe that beat the Trump administration in court — for now