LONDON — Former Tory Cabinet Minister and leading Brexit campaigner Michael Gove will be the next editor of Britain’s 200-year-old Spectator magazine.
Gove, who stood down as an MP at the election earlier this year, takes over from Fraser Nelson, who has edited the magazine since 2009.
It’s a major changing of the guard at a title that remains deeply influential on conservative politics in the U.K., and comes amid reports that Boris Johnson is being considered for a top editorial position at the right-leaning Telegraph newspaper.
The Spectator was acquired by GB News co-owner Paul Marshall earlier this month. The hedge fund tycoon paid £100 million for the title.
Gove served in government for almost the entirety of the Tories’ period in office from 2010 to 2024. One of the most prominent campaigners for Brexit, he twice ran unsuccessfully for the party’s leadership. But his roots are in journalism: he spent years as a columnist and editor at the Times of London.
In a Spectator editorial announcing the move, Nelson — who will continue to write for the magazine and become associate editor — said of Gove: “He might have taken a circuitous route but his experience, combined with his journalistic skills and the quality of The Spectatorteam around him, will make for quite a potent combination.”
Gove takes office from Oct. 4, while the Conservative leadership election is still ongoing. Gove backed Kemi Badenoch in the 2022 Tory leadership contest, and she is seen as one of the leading contenders this time round.
The Spectator has long been associated with the Conservatives, with former editors often going on to play a significant role within the party. Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson edited the Spectator between 1999 and 2005 while ex-Chancellor Nigel Lawson was editor from 1966 to 1970 before entering parliament.
Gove’s appointment is technically dependent on the U.K.’s Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, a watchdog which advises former ministers on roles they take up after leaving public office.
<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/VI8Twb0pEws_Z69G-AZG1nn9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="Supreme Court limits scope of environmental review " title="Supreme Court limits scope of environmental review "> <p>The Supreme Court on Thursday <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-975_m648.pdf">unanimously ruled</a> to limit the scope of environmental review required under a seminal 1970s environmental protection law. The move brought a proposed 88-mile railroad line that would transport crude oil from oilfields in northern Utah to refineries on the Gulf Coast one step closer to production. Environmental groups and a neighboring Colorado county had told the justices that the federal agency that approved the project had failed to consider its broader environmental costs. </p> <span id="more-528882"></span> <p>In ruling for the railroad, the justices sketched out a relatively narrow role for courts reviewing future decisions under the National Environmental Policy Act, the landmark environmental law at the center of the case. Emphasizing that the “goal of the law is to inform agency decisionmaking, not to paralyze it,” Justice Brett Kavanagh explained that courts should give “substantial deference” to the agency’s determination as to what should be included in the environmental impact statement prepared for a project. “In deciding cases involving the American economy,” Kavanaugh concluded, “courts should strive, where possible, for clarity and predictability.” </p> <p>The court’s three Democratic appointees agreed more narrowly with the result that their colleagues reached, even if they did not agree with the reasoning that they used to arrive at that conclusion. Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated that the majority “unnecessarily ground[ed] its analysis largely in matters of policy,” but the board, based on the statute itself, did not have the power to reject the application to build the railroad based on any negative effects that might flow from products carried on the railway. </p> <p>The dispute before the court began after the U.S. Surface Transportation Board approved a proposal by a group of Utah counties to build a railroad line that would connect with the broader interstate freight rail network to “facilitate the transportation of crude oil” from the state’s oil-rich Uinta Basin to refineries in states like Louisiana and Texas. The proposed train would quadruple production at Utah’s largest oil and gas fields. In August 2021, the board released an environmental impact statement that was more than 3,600 pages long and addressed the environmental consequences of the project. In approving the project in December of that year, the board explained that the project’s “substantial transportation and economic benefits” outweighed those environmental effects.</p> <p>Several environmental groups and Eagle County, Colorado, challenged the board’s decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. That court threw out the board’s order approving the project. It reasoned that the board should have taken a “hard look” at all of the railroad’s environmental effects. This would include, the court of appeals said, both the “upstream” effects – effects from oil drilling in the basin – and the “downstream” effects – effects from oil refining along the Gulf Coast.</p> <p>On Thursday the Supreme Court reversed. Kavanaugh explained that although NEPA requires agencies to prepare an environmental impact statement “identifying significant environmental effects of the projects, as well as feasible alternatives,” the law at its core “is purely procedural.” In reaching its decision about whether a project should go forward, he wrote, “an ‘agency is not constrained by NEPA from deciding that other values outweigh the environmental costs.’” </p> <p>When courts are reviewing these determinations, Kavanaugh continued, “the central principle” is “deference.” Kavanaugh acknowledged that since last year’s decision in <em><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/loper-bright-enterprises-v-raimondo/">Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo</a></em>, courts generally do not provide deference to an agency’s interpretation of a statute, instead taking a fresh look at the law. “But when” – as in this situation – “an agency exercises discretion granted by a statute,” Kavanaugh wrote, courts instead look at whether the agency action “was reasonable and reasonably explained.” In NEPA cases, he stated, “an agency’s only obligation is to prepare an adequate report.” </p> <p>Kavanaugh spelled out the limits on the role of the courts even more clearly, stressing that “it is critical to disaggregate the agency’s role from the court’s role. So long as the EIS addresses environmental effects from the project at issue,” he wrote, “courts should defer to agencies’ decisions about where to draw the line—including (i) how far to go in considering indirect environmental effects from the project at hand and (ii) whether to analyze environmental effects from other projects separate in time or place from the project at hand.” </p> <p>Kavanaugh also criticized courts that have in the past, in his view, not provided the kind of deference that NEPA requires. In doing so, he suggested, those courts “have slowed down or blocked many projects and, in turn, caused litigation-averse agencies to take ever more time and to prepare even longer EISs for future projects.” And as a result, he concluded, “NEPA has transformed from a modest procedural requirement into a blunt and haphazard tool employed by project opponents (who may not always be entirely motivated by concern for the environment) to try to stop or at least slow down new infrastructure and construction projects.” </p> <p>The effects of that transformation, Kavanaugh explained, are significant. “Fewer projects make it to the finish line” or even “the starting line,” he stated – and the ones that do make it are more expensive. “A 1970 legislative acorn has grown over the years into a judicial oak,” he said, “that has hindered infrastructure development ‘under the guise’ of just a little more process.” </p> <p>The D.C. Circuit’s ruling was also wrong, Kavanaugh added, because the board was not required to address the environmental effects of “projects that are separate in time or place from the” railroad itself. Indeed, Kavanaugh observed, “those separate projects fall outside the Board’s authority and would be initiated, if at all, by” other parties. </p> <p>In an 11-page opinion, Sotomayor faulted the majority for relying on policy considerations but explained that the board did not have the power to reject railroad applications based on the ways that other entities would use the products carried on the proposed railroad. As a result, she reasoned, the board could not have rejected the Utah counties’ request based on a desire to “prevent the harmful effects of oil drilling and refining.” Therefore, she concluded, she agreed with her colleagues’ decision to reverse the D.C. Circuit’s ruling “requiring the Board to consider in further detail harms caused by the oil industry.” </p> <p>Justice Neil Gorsuch was recused from the case. A <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-975/333350/20241204161910549_Letter%20from%20the%20Clerk%20in%20No.%2023-975.pdf">Dec. 4 letter</a> from Scott Harris, the clerk of the Supreme Court, indicated only that Gorsuch was not participating “consistent with the Code of Conduct” <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf">adopted by the justices in 2023</a>. However, Gorsuch has long had close ties with Philip Anschutz, a billionaire with investments in the energy sector, including a company that filed a “friend of the court” brief in this case. </p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/05/supreme-court-limits-scope-of-environmental-review/">Supreme Court limits scope of environmental review </a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/AXDo7-tiasQk6Qq2rHg4LHn9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="Trump asks Supreme Court to block order to return wrongly deported man to U.S." title="Trump asks Supreme Court to block order to return wrongly deported man to U.S."> <img width="150" height="150" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-6-150x150.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Trump asks Supreme Court to block order to return wrongly deported man to U.S." title="Trump asks Supreme Court to block order to return wrongly deported man to U.S." style="float:right;" decoding="async" srcset="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-6-150x150.jpg 150w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-6-570x570.jpg 570w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-6-500x500.jpg 500w, https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/supremecourt-6-1000x1000.jpg 1000w" sizes="(max-width: 150px) 100vw, 150px" /><p><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Ftrump-asks-supreme-court-to-block-order-to-return-wrongly-deported-man-to-u-s%2F&linkname=Trump%20asks%20Supreme%20Court%20to%20block%20order%20to%20return%20wrongly%20deported%20man%20to%20U.S." title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Ftrump-asks-supreme-court-to-block-order-to-return-wrongly-deported-man-to-u-s%2F&linkname=Trump%20asks%20Supreme%20Court%20to%20block%20order%20to%20return%20wrongly%20deported%20man%20to%20U.S." title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Ftrump-asks-supreme-court-to-block-order-to-return-wrongly-deported-man-to-u-s%2F&linkname=Trump%20asks%20Supreme%20Court%20to%20block%20order%20to%20return%20wrongly%20deported%20man%20to%20U.S." title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Ftrump-asks-supreme-court-to-block-order-to-return-wrongly-deported-man-to-u-s%2F&linkname=Trump%20asks%20Supreme%20Court%20to%20block%20order%20to%20return%20wrongly%20deported%20man%20to%20U.S." title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_printfriendly" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/printfriendly?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Ftrump-asks-supreme-court-to-block-order-to-return-wrongly-deported-man-to-u-s%2F&linkname=Trump%20asks%20Supreme%20Court%20to%20block%20order%20to%20return%20wrongly%20deported%20man%20to%20U.S." title="PrintFriendly" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_no_icon addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F04%2Ftrump-asks-supreme-court-to-block-order-to-return-wrongly-deported-man-to-u-s%2F&title=Trump%20asks%20Supreme%20Court%20to%20block%20order%20to%20return%20wrongly%20deported%20man%20to%20U.S." data-a2a-url="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/trump-asks-supreme-court-to-block-order-to-return-wrongly-deported-man-to-u-s/" data-a2a-title="Trump asks Supreme Court to block order to return wrongly deported man to U.S.">Share</a></p><p>The Trump administration came to the Supreme Court on Monday morning, asking the justices to block an order by a federal judge in Maryland that instructed the federal government to return a Maryland man erroneously deported to El Salvador, where he is being held in a maximum-security mega-prison, to the United States by Monday evening.</p>
<p>Shortly after the government came to the Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit denied the Department of Justice’s request to block the order. “The United States Government has no legal authority to snatch a person who is lawfully present in the United States off the street and remove him from the country without due process,” the unanimous 4th Circuit wrote.</p>
<p>John Sauer, who was confirmed as the U.S. solicitor general last week, told the justices that U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis had “ordered unprecedented relief: dictating to the United States that it must not only negotiate with a foreign country to return an enemy alien on foreign soil, but also succeed by 11:59 p.m. tonight.” Sauer also asked the court to grant an administrative stay, which would freeze Xinis’s order long enough to give the justices time to consider his request.<span id="more-319509"></span></p>
<p>Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia was born in El Salvador and came to this country as an undocumented immigrant. In 2019, an immigration judge granted him withholding of removal, which means that he is protected against being removed to El Salvador because of the likelihood that he would be harmed if returned there. He has never been charged with or convicted of a crime.</p>
<p>On March 12, Abrego Garcia was taken into ICE custody and eventually moved to Texas and, from there, to El Salvador’s notorious Terrorism Confinement Center. The detainees who arrived there from the U.S. were stripped, shackled, and had their heads shaved. No one has heard from Abrego Garcia since he arrived in El Salvador.</p>
<p>Lawyers representing Abrego Garcia went to federal court in Maryland, where Abrego Garcia lived with his wife and three children, seeking his return to the United States. The federal government acknowledged that Abrego Garcia should not have been taken to El Salvador, but it countered that Xinis lacked the power to consider Abrego Garcia’s case because (among other things) he was now in El Salvador and because the U.S government lacks any ability to get him back.</p>
<p>In a brief ruling on Friday, followed by a longer written decision on Sunday, Xinis instructed the federal government to return Abrego Garcia by 11:59 p.m. on Monday. The government, she stressed, “had no legal authority to arrest him, no justification to detain him, and no grounds to send him to El Salvador—let alone deliver him into one of the most dangerous prisons in the Western Hemisphere.”</p>
<p>Xinis declined to put her ruling on hold to give the government time to appeal, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit (in an order that appeared on the docket after the Trump administration submitted its filing to the Supreme Corut) did the same.</p>
<p>In <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A949/354843/20250407103341248_Kristi%20Noem%20application.pdf">his 25-page filing</a>, Sauer contended that “[e]ven amidst a deluge of unlawful injunctions” – apparently referring to other court orders blocking Trump administration policies – “this order is remarkable” because even Abrego Garcia had not asked the federal courts “to force the United States to persuade El Salvador to release” him “on a judicially mandated clock.” The federal government, Sauer maintained, “cannot guarantee success in sensitive international negotiations in advance, least of all when a court imposes an absurdly compressed, mandatory deadline that vastly complicates the give-and-take of foreign-relations negotiations.”</p>
<p>Sauer also repeated the government’s contention that Abrego Garcia was a member of the international criminal gang Mara Salvatrucha, commonly known as MS-13, which the United States has designated as a terrorist organization. Abrego Garcia disputes this, and in her written order Xinis noted that “the ‘evidence’ against Abrego Garcia consisted of nothing more than his Chicago Bulls hat and hoodie, and a vague, uncorroborated allegation from a confidential informant claiming he belonged to MS-13’s ‘Western’ clique in New York—a place he has never lived.”</p>
<p>Sauer conceded that Abrego Garcia’s “removal to El Salvador was an administrative error.” But that, he continued, does not give district courts the authority to “seize control over foreign relations, treat the Executive Branch as a subordinate diplomat, and demand that the United States let a member of a foreign terrorist organization into America tonight.”</p>
<p><em>This article was <a href="https://amylhowe.com/2025/04/07/trump-asks-supreme-court-to-block-order-to-return-wrongly-deported-man-to-u-s/">originally published at Howe on the Court</a>. </em></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/trump-asks-supreme-court-to-block-order-to-return-wrongly-deported-man-to-u-s/">Trump asks Supreme Court to block order to return wrongly deported man to U.S.</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance turned on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a remarkably tense exchange in the Oval Office on Friday,…
