CNN Legal Analyst Jabs Judge For ‘Inappropriate’ Remark About Trump
CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig criticized a federal district court judge for making what he described as an “Inappropriate” remark about President Donald Trump in a ruling that blocked his attempt to remove the chair of the National Labor Relations Board.
During a Thursday evening segment with host Kaitlan Collins, Honig expressed concern that the judge had become “quite political” in the decision. Collins introduced the discussion with the following:
A federal judge has ruled that President Trump’s dismissal of the National Labor Relations Board chair was unlawful. The decision, which was highly critical, included remarks from U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell, who wrote, quote, “An American president is not a king, not even an elected one. And his power to remove federal officers and honest civil servants like plaintiff is not absolute, but may be constrained in appropriate circumstances as present here.” This marks the third instance in less than a week where a federal judge has found Trump’s removal of independent agency heads to be illegal. Joining me to discuss this is CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig. Elie, what do you think about this ruling? Were you surprised?
“Not surprised at all, Kaitlan, because most fundamentally, Donald Trump broke the law and he doesn’t even contend otherwise,” Honig stated. “Now, Congress had enacted a law specifying that this particular NLRB official could only be removed under certain conditions—with notice, a hearing, and good cause. Trump disregarded those requirements and simply fired him without following any of them.”
“But the important thing to remember here is that Donald Trump is not focusing on the district court, the trial court where we saw today’s ruling—he is setting his sights on the Supreme Court,” Honig explained. “He anticipates that this case, or another similar firing case, will eventually be considered by the Supreme Court, where he will argue that Congress lacks the authority to impose such restrictions on his ability to remove officials. His argument will be that, as the head of the Executive Branch, he has the power to make these decisions.”
“I wouldn’t be surprised if the Supreme Court takes up one of these cases, and I also wouldn’t be surprised if Trump ultimately prevails there,” he added.
“Yeah, we don’t know. I mean, obviously, a lot of attention has been on Justice Amy Coney Barrett, particularly in relation to how she ruled with the other justices on the USAID funding case,” Collins responded before shifting the discussion toward Howell’s language in the ruling.
“But in this case tonight, you know, what Judge Howell wrote was significant,” Collins continued. “At one point, she stated, ‘The president, who touts an image of himself as a king or as a dictator, perhaps as his vision of effective leadership, fundamentally misapprehends the role,’ which aligns with exactly what you were pointing out, Elie—that this ruling is testing the presidency and its limitations.”
Honig, however, took issue with Howell’s framing, making it clear he disagreed with her approach.
“I think that statement from the judge is an exaggeration and, frankly, a mischaracterization of Donald Trump’s legal argument in this case. I believe the judge stepped into political territory in a way that affects her credibility,” he argued.
“Donald Trump is putting forth a completely reasonable, good-faith argument that, as the elected leader of the Executive Branch, he has authority over it. That is a legitimate legal debate,” Honig explained.
“That’s not the same thing as claiming he’s a king or, as the judge referenced elsewhere in her decision, a dictator. That sort of rhetoric is political in nature. I think it was inappropriate and not an accurate way to frame Trump’s argument,” he concluded.