This Day in Legal History: Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo Ratified
On May 19, 1848, Mexico formally ratified the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, officially bringing an end to the Mexican-American War. Signed earlier that year on February 2, the treaty had already been ratified by the United States, but it required approval from both nations to take effect. With Mexico's ratification, the war that had begun in 1846 concluded, marking a major shift in North American territorial boundaries. Under the treaty, Mexico ceded approximately 525,000 square miles—about half its national territory—to the United States. This land included present-day California, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and parts of several other states.
In exchange, the U.S. paid Mexico $15 million and assumed certain debts owed to American citizens. The treaty also included provisions promising to protect the property and civil rights of Mexican nationals living in the newly acquired territories, though these promises were inconsistently honored. The ratification reshaped the map of North America and solidified U.S. continental expansion under the banner of Manifest Destiny.
Legally, the treaty became a foundational document for interpreting property rights, citizenship claims, and cross-border disputes in the American Southwest. It also remains a focal point for understanding the U.S.-Mexico relationship and the historical roots of immigration and land disputes in the region. The ratification marked not just the end of a war but the beginning of complex legal and cultural transformations that still reverberate today.
The U.S. Supreme Court extended a block on the Trump administration’s attempt to deport roughly 176 Venezuelan detainees under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act (AEA), citing due process concerns. The justices, in a largely unsigned decision, criticized the government for providing less than 24 hours' notice of removal without informing the men how to challenge it. The Court noted the administration’s failure to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who had been wrongly deported to El Salvador despite a previous Supreme Court directive.
Justices Alito and Thomas dissented, saying the Court acted prematurely, bypassing lower courts. However, the majority justified the intervention by pointing to a district judge’s delayed response to an emergency request, which they said risked irreparable harm to the detainees.
Though Trump claimed the AEA is needed to address a national security “invasion” by alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang, the Court did not rule on whether his invocation of the AEA was lawful. The decision leaves that question to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, while preserving the temporary injunction during ongoing litigation.
Justice Kavanaugh wrote separately to support judicial review before any deportation under the AEA, and the Court emphasized that immigration enforcement must align with constitutional protections. The ACLU called the ruling a rebuke of efforts to deport people without adequate process, particularly to harsh conditions like those in El Salvador’s prisons.
Supreme Court Extends Halt of Trump Venezuelan Deportations - Bloomberg
The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to issue rulings in three significant cases that could further expand religious rights and diminish the separation between church and state. Each case centers on the First Amendment’s religion clauses—specifically the tension between the “establishment clause,” which prevents government endorsement of religion, and the “free exercise clause,” which protects individual religious practice.
One case involves an attempt to launch the nation’s first taxpayer-funded religious charter school in Oklahoma. The state’s Supreme Court blocked the school, but conservative justices appeared open to the argument that rejecting it solely due to its religious nature violates the free exercise clause.
A second case concerns Christian and Muslim parents in Maryland seeking the right to opt their children out of public school lessons featuring LGBT-themed storybooks. Lower courts denied the request, but the Supreme Court seemed sympathetic to the parents’ religious freedom claims.
The third case addresses whether Catholic Charities in Wisconsin should be exempt from unemployment insurance taxes. The state denied the exemption, arguing the organization was mainly charitable rather than religious. Conservative justices again signaled support for the religious exemption.
Legal scholars suggest the Court may continue its trend of elevating the free exercise clause at the expense of the establishment clause. Recent rulings have shifted from restricting government support for religious institutions to affirming their right to receive public funds. This trend suggests the Court may increasingly allow religious organizations access to public programs traditionally limited to secular institutions.
US Supreme Court may broaden religious rights in looming rulings | Reuters
A federal appeals court has lifted an injunction that had blocked President Trump’s executive order limiting collective bargaining rights for hundreds of thousands of federal workers. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in a 2–1 decision, allowed the order to move forward, affecting employees in more than a dozen federal agencies, including Justice, Defense, and Health and Human Services.
The executive order expands a national security exemption that exempts workers involved in intelligence or national security from union rights. Trump’s administration argued this exemption was necessary to protect national security autonomy. The court's majority, composed of Republican-appointed judges, agreed, saying the union failed to demonstrate immediate harm that would justify blocking the policy.
The National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), representing about 160,000 federal employees, claimed the order violates federal labor laws and the Constitution. Judge J. Michelle Childs dissented, arguing the administration’s national security justification was too vague to override union protections.
Trump’s directive could impact roughly 75% of union-represented federal workers and specifically targets around 100,000 NTEU members. In addition to the executive order, the Trump administration is also pursuing lawsuits to dismantle existing union contracts for thousands of federal employees.
Court gives go-ahead to Trump's plan to halt union bargaining for many federal workers | Reuters
Billy Long, President Trump’s pick to lead the IRS, is set to face intense questioning from Senate Democrats over his ties to dubious tax credits and campaign donations from their promoters. At the center of the controversy are “sovereign tribal tax credits,” which the Treasury Department says do not exist. Long previously promoted these credits through companies that also contributed large sums to help him retire campaign debt from a failed Senate run.
Though Long lacks traditional tax or management experience, his most prominent qualification—beyond his political loyalty to Trump—is his distinction as the “Best Auctioneer in the Ozarks” for seven consecutive years. Critics point to his absence of tax policy credentials, lack of formal education or experience in tax, and question his independence, particularly given Trump’s recent push to strip institutions like Harvard of tax-exempt status.
Long, a former House member from Missouri, is known for supporting efforts to defund the IRS while in Congress and did not serve on tax-focused committees. Democrats are also scrutinizing his role in promoting the fraud-plagued Employee Retention Credit during the pandemic. As he seeks to take over an agency facing a wave of retirements and leadership departures, Long will likely be pressed on how he would steer enforcement priorities and IRS modernization efforts. Questions are expected to focus on whether he would maintain the agency’s recent push to target high-income tax avoidance or pivot in a different direction.
Senate Panel to Grill IRS Pick on Dubious Tax Credits, Donors
Share this post