This Day in Legal History: John André Convicted
On September 29, 1780, Major John André of the British Army was convicted by a Continental Army court martial for his role in a conspiracy with American General Benedict Arnold. André had been captured behind American lines near Tarrytown, New York, carrying incriminating documents that detailed Arnold’s treasonous plan to surrender the key American fort at West Point to the British. Disguised in civilian clothes and using a false passport, André was found to be operating as a spy rather than a conventional enemy officer.
General George Washington ordered the formation of a board of senior officers, including Generals Nathanael Greene and Marquis de Lafayette, to determine André’s fate. The court martial found him guilty of acting under false pretenses and ruled that he should be hanged as a spy rather than shot as a soldier—a distinction of enormous symbolic and legal consequence. Despite André’s honorable conduct and appeals for a more dignified execution, Washington upheld the sentence.
André’s execution, carried out on October 2, 1780, marked a turning point in the American Revolution’s approach to wartime law, espionage, and loyalty. It also crystallized the betrayal of Benedict Arnold, whose escape to British lines allowed him to avoid prosecution. The case highlighted how military justice operated during wartime, often blending evidentiary hearings with moral and strategic considerations. The outcome emphasized the seriousness with which the Continental Army treated the laws of war, especially in cases of clandestine operations and treason.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Trump administration, allowing it to withhold roughly $4 billion in foreign aid despite Congress having already appropriated the funds. The aid was intended for programs including United Nations peacekeeping and global democracy-promotion efforts. The ruling came after a lower court, led by Judge Amir Ali, had ordered the administration to release the funds, siding with aid groups that filed the lawsuit. In a brief, unsigned order, the Supreme Court questioned whether those groups had legal standing and warned that enforcing the lower court’s ruling could infringe on the president’s authority over foreign policy.
The court’s three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Elena Kagan criticizing the majority for undermining the Constitution’s separation of powers. She argued that once Congress passes appropriations laws, the executive branch is legally required to carry them out unless Congress acts to change them. The Trump administration defended its actions as aligned with its “America First” foreign policy, claiming the spending conflicted with current U.S. interests. To withhold the funds, it used a “pocket rescission” strategy—an obscure method to delay spending long enough for the funds to expire.
This decision reflects a broader trend of the Supreme Court supporting Trump-era policies, especially those halted by lower courts. Critics warn the ruling could set a precedent that weakens congressional control over federal spending. Legal scholars note that Trump’s withholding of appropriated funds through this method is without historical precedent and could have significant humanitarian consequences globally.
US Supreme Court lets Trump withhold $4 billion in foreign aid | Reuters
The Texas Supreme Court issued a preliminary opinion suggesting that the American Bar Association (ABA) should no longer control which Texas law schools qualify to send graduates to the state bar exam. Under proposed rule changes, that authority would shift to the Texas Supreme Court itself. The court would use what it calls “simple, objective, and ideologically neutral criteria,” such as bar passage rates, rather than relying on the ABA’s existing standards.
While the justices don’t expect immediate changes to the current list of approved schools, the proposal marks a significant shift in how legal education could be regulated in Texas. Public comments will be accepted through December 1, with the rules potentially taking effect on January 1, 2026. The move comes amid broader conservative criticism of the ABA, particularly its diversity and inclusion standards, which have drawn opposition from the Trump administration and other Republican-led states like Florida and Ohio.
Texas Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock criticized the ABA for lacking ideological neutrality, saying it no longer represents the views of all lawyers. In response, eight out of ten Texas law school deans warned that severing ties with the ABA could damage national reputations and reduce access to quality legal services in the state.
ABA Accreditation Should End in Texas, Justices Say Tentatively
President Trump has formally asked the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold his executive order seeking to limit birthright citizenship, directly challenging longstanding interpretations of the 14th Amendment. His proposal would deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born on U.S. soil unless at least one parent is a citizen or permanent resident. This represents a sharp departure from over a century of constitutional understanding, which has granted citizenship to nearly all individuals born in the country, regardless of their parents’ status.
Trump’s legal team argues that the 14th Amendment was intended to apply only to children of those fully subject to U.S. jurisdiction—namely, citizens or lawful permanent residents—not to the children of temporary visa holders or undocumented immigrants. The administration is appealing a decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which rejected the executive order as an unconstitutional reinterpretation of settled law.
This appeal marks the first time the Supreme Court is being asked to rule directly on the legality of such a restriction. In past cases, such as United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Court upheld citizenship for those born in the U.S. to noncitizen parents. Trump’s team is also asking the Court to consider a related case brought by individual plaintiffs, even though it hasn’t reached the appellate level, in hopes of securing a broad ruling.
