Issa

Leading opposition candidate unilaterally declares himself the victor, and calls on incumbent Paul Biya to concede.

Cameroon opposition leader Issa Tchiroma Bakary has unilaterally declared victory in the country’s presidential election.

Tchiroma made the statement in a nearly five-minute speech posted to social media early on Tuesday. Although official channels have not declared results, he urged long-term incumbent, 92-year-old President Paul Biya, to call him to concede.

“The people have chosen, and this choice must be respected,” Tchiroma demanded in the video.

However, the government warned earlier this week that only results announced by the Constitutional Council can be considered official. The body has almost two weeks to make the announcement.

A former government spokesman and ally of Biya for 20 years, Tchiroma was considered the top contender to unseat Biya in Sunday’s elections.

After he resigned from the government in June, his campaign drew large crowds and key endorsements from a coalition of opposition parties and civic groups.

But Biya – in power for 43 years and the world’s oldest serving head of state – has been widely expected to secure another seven-year term in office, given his tight grip on state machinery and the fragmented nature of the opposition.

Cameroon’s government has not responded officially to Tchiroma’s declaration.

However, Minister of Territorial Administration Paul Atanga Nji warned recently that only the Constitutional Council has the authority to announce the winner, and that any unilateral publication of results would be considered “high treason”.

Cameroon’s electoral law allows results to be published and posted at individual polling stations, but final tallies must be validated by the Constitutional Council, which has until October 26 to announce the outcome, the Reuters news agency reported.

‘Honour’ the ballot box

In the video, filmed in his northern hometown of Garoua in front of the national flag, Tchiroma urged Biya to “honour the truth of the ballot box”, and to concede and offer congratulations.

Doing so, he said, would be a mark of Cameroon’s political maturity and the strength of its democracy.

The election results, he said, represent “a clear sanction” of Biya’s administration and marked “the beginning of a new era”.

Tchiroma also thanked rival candidates “who have already congratulated me and recognised the will of the people”.

He called on government institutions and the military to recognise his victory and “stay on the side of the republic”.

“Do not let anyone divert you from your mission to protect the people,” he said.

Issa Amro lives in Hebron, in the occupied West Bank. He never knows how far he can venture out of his neighbourhood, due to attacks by Israeli settlers and random checkpoint closures. His video diary shows the challenges Palestinians living in Hebron face as settlers try to take their land, supported by the Israeli state and military.

WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives passed a bill Wednesday brought by one California Republican to limit the ability of federal judges to pass rulings that have national impact — a pet issue that President Trump has seized on as his administration faces a litany of lawsuits since taking office.

“In recent years, it has become glaringly obvious that federal judges are overstepping their constitutional bounds,” Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Bonsall) said on the House floor Wednesday. “A district judge needs to be confined to their district and to people who are in their district.”

The No Rogue Rulings Act would limit federal judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions by curtailing their ability to make decisions that affect people outside their district.

Democratic leaders ordered their party to vote against the bill and instead forced a vote to replace it with a resolution condemning a rise in violence against federal judges — including in rhetoric from Trump and his advisor Elon Musk. The resolution failed.

The bill passed with all but one Republican vote. Every Democrat voted against it.

“Since President Trump has returned to office, left-leaning activists have cooperated with ideological judges who they have sought out to take their cases and weaponized nationwide injunctions to stall dozens of lawful executive actions and initiatives,” Issa said in his floor speech.

Trump offered his support for the idea weeks ago, posting on his social media platform Truth Social, “Unlawful Nationwide Injunctions by Radical Left Judges could very well lead to the destruction of our Country!”

Issa blasted federal judges for the myriad injunctions against Trump’s executive actions. When introducing the bill to the House Judiciary Committee, he brought a chart, pointing to the 64 injunctions Trump received in his first term — far above former Presidents Biden (14), Obama (12) or Bush (6).

“The injunctions are nothing more than partisan judicial overreach and have disrupted the president’s ability to carry out his lawful constitutional duty,” Issa said at the committee hearing. “This has allowed activist judges to shape national policy across the entire country … something this Constitution never contemplated.”

But Democrats argue that federal judges are doing their jobs, and that curbing their ability could cause chaos if their rulings are effective only within certain districts and not others.

“If you don’t like the injunctions, don’t do illegal, unconstitutional stuff — it’s that simple,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said Wednesday. “Nationwide injunctions play an essential role in protecting our democracy and holding the political branches accountable.”

Lena Zwarensteyn, advisor to the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, which joined more than 50 other organizations in sending a letter to Congress opposing the measure, called it “rigging the judiciary in favor of Trump.”

“Congressional efforts that seek to undermine the independence and fairness of the judiciary are blatant attempts to appease a president who thinks he’s king, and they seek to usher in autocracy in ways that should alarm everyone,” Zwarensteyn said in a statement.

Politicians from both parties have grumbled over the years about any one federal judge’s ability to pass rulings that have national impact. Already, nationwide injunctions from district judges often are appealed and, if reversed, wind up in the Supreme Court.

The bill now heads to the Senate.

WASHINGTON — As court orders against his administration mount, President Trump has ramped up his attacks on federal judges in recent days, railing against their authority and calling for their impeachment.

In particular, the president seems to have zeroed in on the idea of limiting federal district judges’ ability to issue injunctions that have national implications.

“Unlawful Nationwide Injunctions by Radical Left Judges could very well lead to the destruction of our Country!” Trump posted Thursday night on his social media platform. “These people are Lunatics, who do not care, even a little bit, about the repercussions from their very dangerous and incorrect Decisions and Rulings.”

While Trump rages on social media — going as far as calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to limit district courts’ ability to grant injunctions — one California Republican in Congress is working to rein in the judges who are checking Trump’s powers.

Rep. Darrell Issa of Bonsall introduced the No Rogue Rulings Act, or NORRA, last month to limit federal judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions, curtailing their ability to make decisions that affect people outside their district.

Issa’s legislation has gained traction among several prominent Republicans — including the president, who is determined to advance his anti-immigration agenda despite setbacks in the courts.

“You can’t stop that with a judge sitting behind a bench who has no idea what’s going on, who happens to be a radical left lunatic,” Trump said Friday from the Oval Office.

In Washington, where Republicans control the White House, Senate and House of Representatives. Issa’s bill reflects a broader push by Republicans to clamp down on the judiciary, which has proved to be the only arena where Trump is encountering consistent opposition.

Following Trump’s lead, some Republicans are targeting judges they deem “activists” for impeachment. Elon Musk, one of the president’s closest advisors and the subject of several court cases himself, echoed those calls last week, posting on X, “This is a judicial coup.”

In the myriad court cases Trump faces for his dozens of sweeping executive orders and actions since taking office in January, perhaps the most pointed rebuke came earlier this month, when U.S. District Judge James Boasberg of the District of Columbia
ordered the government to turn around planes carrying immigrants for deportation. The planes landed at their destination in El Salvador, and the judge has been tussling with the president’s lawyers about whether they defied his order.

The episode escalated Democratic concerns that the Trump administration may refuse to follow a judge’s orders, launching a “constitutional crisis” and threatening American democracy. For Republicans, Boasberg’s order became another notch in a long line of judicial attacks against Trump.

“The injunctions are nothing more than partisan judicial overreach, and have disrupted the president’s ability to carry out his lawful constitutional duty,” Issa said when introducing NORRA in a House Judiciary Committee hearing. “This has allowed activist judges to shape national policy across the entire country … something this Constitution never contemplated.”

Boasberg, the judge who tried to block the flights of Venezuelan immigrants that ultimately landed in a San Salvador prison, was appointed to the Superior Court by President George W. Bush and elevated to the federal bench by President Obama. Many other judges who have stymied Trump’s efforts — such as the banning of transgender troops from the military or attempts to cripple the U.S. Agency For International Development — were appointed by Democratic presidents.

Justin Levitt, a constitutional law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said the power of district court judges to make rulings that are binding on a national level has vexed Democrats and Republicans for decades.

In recent years, federal district and appellate courtsissued injunctions limiting portions of former President Biden’s attempts to forgive student debt and parts of former Obama’s Affordable Care Act.

“This is actually a serious issue that has come up on a number of occasions on both sides of the aisle,” Levitt said. “It’s a little difficult to know how seriously to take this particular version because, depending on who tends to be in power at any given time, different members of Congress seem to really like or really hate these sorts of aggressive court action.”

When introducing NORRA to the Judiciary Committee, Issa brought a chart showing the number of injunctions presidents have faced in office. In his first term, Trump received 64, far above former Presidents Biden (14), Obama (12) or Bush (6). Trump already faces 12 injunctions in his second term, according to Issa’s chart.

“The implication of this chart is that somehow the courts have done something wrong, rather than Donald Trump having done something wrong,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said at the hearing. “The reason there are 64 injunctions against him is because he is trampling the lawmaking and spending powers of the Congress of the United States.”

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley Law School, said Issa’s bill was a “terrible idea” that would sow chaos in the federal courts. In practice, Chemerinsky said, the measure probably would create conflicting rulings between districts, making Americans subject to different rules in different parts of the country on complex issues including birthright citizenship or a transgender soldier’s right to be in the military.

“If the Northern District of California issues an order telling a Cabinet secretary not to do something, the Cabinet secretary will say they’re not bound by that order outside the Northern District of California,” he said.

Chemerinsky said the bill is a hammer in search of a nail, as national injunctions issued by district courts already have a limited effect. Such issues are often quickly appealed, and if a federal appellate court reverses the lower court judge, a case could then make its way before the U.S. Supreme Court.

He did acknowledge, however, that the issuance of nationwide injunctions has become more prevalent as the nation’s partisan divide grows sharper, with plaintiffs on both ends of the political spectrum “judge shopping” for ideological allies on the bench.

“Conservatives in the Biden administration continually went to courts in Texas to get injunctions, and liberals have done that in the Trump administration,” he said.

Judge James Boasberg of the D.C. District Court, shown in 2023, has drawn attacks from President Trump after ordering planes carrying Venezuelan migrants to turn around during deportation flights.

(Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Republican lawmakers eager to defend the president have leapt to support the legislation. It sailed out of the House Judiciary Committee, which Issa sits on, in early March and is expected to reach the House floor for a vote soon.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), another ardent Trump supporter in Congress, announced Thursday that he also would bring legislation in the Senate to limit nationwide injunctions.

“You can feel when momentum is coming for a bill you’re working on,” said Jonathan Wilcox, Issa’s spokesperson. “When the White House is aligned, the Senate’s involved, leadership’s positive. You don’t get that every day.”

Issa’s legislation marks how Republicans have come to completely align themselves behind the president since he first took office in 2017. At the time, Issa, a conservative representing California’s southwestern corner, broke with his party to join with Democrats in calling for an independent investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Issa faced a few tough challengers in elections since, but handily won the 48th Congressional District seat in November with 59% of the vote. He has since positioned himself as one of the president’s staunchest allies in California. Earlier this month, Issa said he would nominate Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize.

Despite his support — and his chart — Issa insisted during the committee hearing that NORRA was not about Trump.

“We are not passing a law for the current occupant of the White House,” Issa said. “We are passing a law that will improve the effectiveness of the executive branch, and the reasonable challenges to actions by an executive branch, now and for the rest of the many years of our great republic.”

Issa’s bill also includes an amendment from Rep. Derek Schmidt, a Republican and former attorney general of Kansas, that would allow for a case brought by states and involving multiple districts to be reviewed by a three-judge panel, with the ability to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Levitt questioned the practical ability of Issa’s measure to cure Trump’s frustrations with district judges’ actions on his executive orders. The exception cited in Issa’s bill refers to the Administrative Procedure Act, a 1946 law that gives federal courts oversight with respect to the actions of federal agencies, Levitt said.

When plaintiffs sue to block actions implemented by executive order, they’re actually suing the agency tasked with carrying out the president’s direction — agencies that judges could still enjoin under the Administrative Procedure Act, Levitt said.

In cases that have recently infuriated Trump — such as the judges’ orders blocking his push to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members without due process, or to eliminate birthright citizenship — Levitt said Issa’s bill would have no effect, since the defendants in those cases would be Cabinet-level agencies that are subject to the APA.

Although Levitt didn’t think Issa’s bill would achieve the weakening of judiciary power that Trump seems to desire, he did warn that Republicans are walking a path they could regret when they’re the minority party again and in need of injunctive relief.

“Do you object in the same way to the super conservative rulings that affected the Biden administration in the same way that you are protesting here?” Levitt asked.

Chemerinsky said Issa’s bill is more concerning at a time when the Trump administration seems set on weakening the powers of the legislative and judicial branches.

“You have a president who is simultaneously trying to define presidential powers more broadly than anyone has in U.S. history,” he said. “This bill is trying to take away a check on that power in this crucial moment.”

Rae, who was born JoIssa Rae Diop, was scheduled to perform at a sold-out show March 16.

Earlier this week, Trump fired several Kennedy Center board members and appointed new ones before being elected as chair.

The president said he will move the center’s programming away from what he calls “woke culture,” CBS News reported.

“Thank you so much for selling out the Kennedy Center for An Evening with Issa Rae,” she said in a social media post.

“Unfortunately, due to what I believe to be an infringement on the values of an institution that has faithfully celebrated artists of all backgrounds through all mediums, I’ve decided to cancel my appearance at this venue.”

Rae is not the only celebrity to cut ties with the national cultural center.

Producer and writer Shonda Rhimes confirmed on Instagram she was stepping down as Kennedy Center Treasurer, while musician Ben Folds resigned as an artistic director.

Singer Renee Fleming resigned from a similar post, but did not directly cite Trump’s appointment as the reason for her departure.

Philadelphia-based band Low Cut Connie announced on Instagram the group would no longer play shows at the Kennedy Center.

The creators of the children’s show, Finn The Shark, said they were informed their Kennedy Center performances were being canceled.