‘This Crosses the Line’: Turley Rips Letitia James’ ‘Unprecedented’ Attack on Trump

Clear Facts

• Jonathan Turley criticized New York Attorney General Letitia James’ recent lawsuit against the Trump administration as “truly insane.”
• James accused the Trump administration of “sabotaging” the federal government through cuts to the Department of Health and Human Services.
• Turley highlighted the problematic nature of national injunctions, which he argues impede a president’s ability to govern effectively.

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley has delivered a scathing critique of New York Attorney General Letitia James’ latest legal action against the Trump administration.

In a recent interview, Turley described the lawsuit as “truly insane,” reflecting his broader concerns about the trend of political opponents using the courts to stymie presidential policy.

The lawsuit, announced by James, targets cuts to the Department of Health and Human Services. She claims these cuts amount to the Trump administration “sabotaging” the federal government.

Turley expressed his frustration, noting a troubling pattern where political figures like James use the courts to challenge policies they oppose.

“The problem for the Trump Administration is they file before favorable courts in blue states and they’re getting these national injunctions and it has gotten to the point of being absolutely absurd,” Turley stated.

He elaborated on the challenges faced by the presidency, explaining that the current system requires a president to win every case across 677 district court judges to implement policy.

“Well, the justices have said, including liberal justices like Justice Kagan, that this is truly insane,” he added.

James, who has a history of targeting Trump, previously filed a lawsuit in September 2022, accusing him of inflating real estate values to secure loans. This led to a significant ruling in February 2024, where Trump was ordered to pay over $450 million in penalties.

Turley warned of the broader implications of such legal actions, suggesting they undermine the constitutional framework.

“People need to think about the implications of what’s happening,” he said, emphasizing that the presidency should not be at the mercy of district court judges.

He criticized some of the injunctions as “overtly unconstitutional,” highlighting the lengthy process required to challenge them.

“Now, on May 15th, the Supreme Court is going to look at national injunctions,” Turley noted, expressing hope that the court will restore order and prevent district judges from overstepping their bounds.

As the Supreme Court prepares to address this critical issue, Turley and others are eager to see a resolution that respects the electoral process and allows presidents to enact necessary changes.

Let us know what you think, please share your thoughts in the comments below.

Source