“there is extraordinarily little support for the idea that the president could simply disregard orders from the courts. That is true across the public, according to recent polls, with more than 80 percent of Americans rejecting the idea.
I also found similar responses from an informal survey of conservative legal thinkers, including from those generally sympathetic or otherwise open to the administration’s legal positions.
“The Constitution implicitly requires the executive branch to … comply with judicial judgments when the executive is part of the case,” Saikrishna Prakash, a law professor at the University of Virginia and onetime clerk for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, told me.
“It’s never permissible for a president to defy a court order,” said Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow and legal analyst at the Manhattan Institute.”
…
“There are other practical reasons for the Trump administration to stay on the right side of the courts.
“What’s laying in the background is that they probably perceive, rightly or wrongly, that they’re going to win 70, 60 percent of the time in the Supreme Court,” Prakash told me, referring to the array of ongoing disputes that may wind up before the justices. “So why would you want to trash the judiciary if you think you’re ultimately going to win most of the time?”
Just as important, if not more so, is that a confrontation between Trump and the courts would imperil the successful, decades-long project by Republicans and conservatives to shift the Supreme Court to the right. In just the last few years, the six GOP appointees have revamped constitutional law in a host of areas — from abortion to affirmative action to the administrative state — but there are plenty of issues that are still on conservatives’ wish list and facing action at the Supreme Court.”
…
“None of this works particularly well if Trump ends up antagonizing potential swing-vote justices like Roberts or Amy Coney Barrett. As former Gov. Chris Christie recently noted to ABC News, “He’s going to tick off the Supreme Court so much that they may not give him everything he wants.””
“Two law firms targeted by President Donald Trump sued Friday to bar enforcement of his executive orders seeking to shut them out of government business and strip key lawyers of their security clearances.
In separate suits, Big Law firms Jenner & Block and WilmerHale say Trump’s effort to target them amounts to an unprecedented attack on the legal profession in retaliation for their work for past clients he doesn’t like and for past causes with which he disagrees. If carried out, they say, the orders would devastate their practices and have already begun to cause anxiety among their hundreds clients with government business.
Jenner & Block’s lawsuit contends Trump’s order is an unconstitutional threat to the firm and the legal system itself, seeking to “punish citizens and lawyers based on the clients they represent, the positions they advocate, the opinions they voice, and the people with whom they associate.” The lawsuit was filed on the firm’s behalf by California-based law firm Cooley LLP.
“The President’s sweeping attack on WilmerHale (and other firms) is unprecedented and unconstitutional,” writes Paul Clement, a veteran Supreme Court lawyer representing the firm in its lawsuit. “The First Amendment protects the rights of WilmerHale, its employees, and its clients to speak freely, petition the courts and other government institutions, and associate with the counsel of their choice without facing retaliation and discrimination by federal officials.””
“Claiming vast executive powers and “the mandate of the electorate,” the Justice Department on Monday night informed a federal judge that it was invoking the state secrets privilege and refusing to answer a judge’s orders for more information on several deportation flights of alleged Venezuelan gang members.
Attorney General Pam Bondi and other high-ranking Justice Department officials filed a “Notice Invoking State Secrets Privilege” claiming that it “would pose reasonable danger to national security and foreign affairs” to comply with U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s fact-finding inquiries to determine if the U.S. government violated his order to turn those deportation flights around.”
…
“Boasberg has repeatedly ordered the Justice Department to produce detailed information on those flights to determine if officials knowingly defied his orders. The Trump administration has offered various explanations for why it did not comply—that it didn’t consider Boasberg’s verbal order valid, and that Boasberg didn’t have jurisdiction once the flights crossed into international space, for instance.
As Boasberg’s fact-finding orders have proceeded toward considering contempt, the Justice Department’s responses have grown more obstinate, culminating in Monday night’s invocation of the state secrets privilege.”
…
“the Trump administration is claiming that it can declare a war by executive order and send immigrants to a labor camp in another country, all without meaningful judicial review of the facts. As Ilya Somin recently wrote at The Volokh Conspiracy, the Trump administration’s policy violates the Due Process Clause of the Constitution and is “obviously unjust.”
“Imprisoning people without any due process whatsoever is a cruel and evil practice usually used only by authoritarian states,” Somin wrote. “And if the Trump administration gets away with it here, there is an obvious danger it will expand the practice.”
The Trump administration’s attempt to invoke the state secrets privilege raises another, tertiary danger: that we won’t even be able to know if they’re expanding the practice.”
“There are many excellent reasons why Boasberg should not be impeached, including the fact that Boasberg’s judgment against Trump is both persuasive and well-grounded in the law. Trump may claim that he has the unilateral authority to deport alleged criminal aliens without due process. But the administration’s arguments in support of that sweeping claim fail to pass muster on multiple counts.
Under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, “whenever there shall be a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or government,” the president may direct the “removal” of “all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being males of the age of fourteen years and upwards, who shall be within the United States, and not actually naturalized.”
Trump invoked that law in his March 15 proclamation ordering the “immediate apprehension, detention, and removal” of alleged members of the street gang Tren de Aragua, who are allegedly “conducting irregular warfare and undertaking hostile actions against the United States…in conjunction with Cártel de los Soles, the Nicolas Maduro regime-sponsored, narco-terrorism enterprise based in Venezuela.”
Except there is no “declared war” between the United States and Venezuela. And while Trump and his allies have certainly promoted the idea of a rhetorical “invasion” of the U.S. by unlawfully present aliens, that is merely a talking point. Such rhetoric does not alter the plain text of the Alien Enemies Act, which refers to military invasions by a “foreign nation or government.” As James Madison explained in his “Report on the Alien and Sedition Acts,” published on January 7, 1800, “invasion is an operation of war.” The alleged crimes of the alleged members of a nonstate street gang do not magically become “an operation of war” just because the president says so in the hopes of unlocking extra powers.
Speaking of James Madison, he said that the role of the judiciary was to stand as “an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive.” That description is probably as good of an explanation as any for why Trump, just like Roosevelt before him, is so eager to stop the courts from doing their job.”
“The lawsuit filed by USAID employees and contractors argued that Musk and DOGE are wielding power the Constitution reserves only for those who win elections or are confirmed by the Senate.”
“the White House’s social media team had no such concerns as it gleefully bragged about sending dozens of people to a Central American prison without any proof of their guilt.”
…
“The White House says most of the migrants deported over the weekend were believed to be Tren de Aragua members (while others were part of MS-13, a different gang). However, immigration attorneys have pointed out that the administration has not released detailed information about the individuals or explained why they were chosen for deportation.”
…
“The Trump administration’s determination to ignore due process for would-be deportees would be worrying even if it were happening in a vacuum. However, that’s not the case. From the relatively low-stakes willingness of the Department of Government Efficiency to move fast and not wait for permission, to the Trump administration’s attempt to punish law firms for working with the administration’s opponents, and its ongoing attempt to undermine birthright citizenship, the White House is showing little regard for limits on executive authority.
On several different issues, the Trump administration’s “actions reflect an unorthodox conception of American government in which the president pushes his powers to the outer limits, with diminished regard for the checks and balances provided by the legislative and judicial branches,” is how The Wall Street Journal summarized things on Monday.”
“A Rhode Island doctor who is an assistant professor at Brown University’s medical school has been deported to Lebanon even though a judge had issued an order blocking the U.S. visa holder’s immediate removal from the country, according to court papers.
The expulsion of Dr. Rasha Alawieh, 34, is set to be the focus of a hearing on Monday before a federal judge in Boston, who on Sunday demanded information on whether U.S. Customs and Border Protection had “willfully” disobeyed his order.”
“Any decision by the administration to defy federal courts would immediately implicate profound constitutional questions about separation of powers that have kept each branch of the government in check for centuries. That’s in large part because it would test the power of courts to enforce rulings that are supposed to be the final word.
The issue reached a fever pitch on over the weekend when the Trump administration deported hundreds of alleged gang members to El Salvador despite a federal judge’s order that the 19th Century Alien Enemies Act could not be used.”
…
“Legal experts say there are few options to force compliance with its pronouncements. Judges could hold an agency or official in civil or criminal contempt – but that’s about it.
Fears that the Trump administration might deliberately break into a pattern of not following judicial rulings with which it disagrees were amplified last month when a federal judge in Rhode Island, for the second time, told the Trump administration it can’t cut off grant and loan payments after Democratic-led states complained that the administration wasn’t obeying the judge’s previous court order.”
“The flights suggest the Trump administration may be growing more brazen in its defiance of judicial restraint. The U.S. Constitution established the judiciary as a co-equal and independent branch of government.
Trump has sought to push the boundaries of executive power since taking office in January, cutting spending authorized by Congress, dismantling agencies and firing tens of thousands of federal workers.”
…
“On Monday, Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, said the flights were already in international airspace when the judge’s orders came and that more flights would continue.
“Once you’re outside the border, you know, it is what it is. But they’re in international waters, already on the way south, close to landing. You know what? … We did what we had to do,” he told Fox News’ “Fox & Friends” program.
Asked what was next, Homan said: “Another flight, another flight every day.”
“We’re not stopping. I don’t care what the judges think,” he added.”
“The idea that one type of lawyer can meet all legal needs is as outdated now as it was in 1935. Law schools and the legal academy must adjust accordingly.”