We all knew the moment would come in the second Trump term when he got his way and used the DOJ to pursue foes. But it fees like a gut punch nonetheless.
The Flimsy, Dangerous Indictment of James Comey www.newyorker.com/news/the-led...
In Pam Bondi, Donald Trump finally has the attorney general he always wanted. My latest for the New Yorker, www.newyorker.com/magazine/202...
Erez Reuveni, the Justice Department whistleblower, speaks out. His words are powerful. My latest, www.newyorker.com/news/the-led...
The federal courts have been doing an impressive job of standing up to Trump. This includes SCOTUS, at times. But not always. See its latest gift to presidential power--conveniently ignoring a 90-year-old precedent. My latest for New Yorker
www.newyorker.com/news/the-led...
Annals of a judiciary losing its patience--this from the judge overseeing the case of migrants deported to dangerous third countries: "Defendants have mischaracterized this Court’s order, while at the same time manufacturing the very chaos they decry."
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Vance v. Roberts. My latest from New Yorker, about the vice president's wrongheaded claim that the federal courts are frustrating the will of the voters--and that the chief justice should intervene.
Fact check: No, Secretary Noem. Habeas corpus is not a constitutional right the president has to remove people from the country. It is a right the people have to combar the arbitrary use of executive power. I have a handy explanation for you here. www.newyorker.com/news/the-led...
My take on the surprising and at least somewhat cheering oral arguments in the birthright citizenship case. The skeptical reception some justices gave to SG John Sauer was, I think, evidence that the Trump administration's aggressiveness may be costing it in court. www.newyorker.com/magazine/202...
Who’s weaponizing now? Taking career prosecutors out of the equation and leaving it to Trump-installed US Attorneys is yet another dangerous move. www.washingtonpost.com/national-sec...
The right to go to court to protest unlawful detention--habeas corpus--is, SCOTUS has said, “the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action.” Trump is "actively considering" suspending it. My latest,
www.newyorker.com/news/the-led...
law, which lets private parties sue on behalf of federal government. Barr/Luttig thought it was unconstitutional; Starr disagreed. Dick Thornburgh, then the AG, threatened to quit if Starr were tapped for SCOTUS. And this gave us David Souter, because WH was not ready with another backup.
Jan Crawford writes in her book about how Souter was chosen instead of Ken Starr, then the Solicitor General, to replace Justice Brennan. Bill Barr, then head of Office of Legal Counsel, and Michael Luttig--yes, that Judge Luttig--were upset about Starr's position on the "qui tam."
Rest in peace, Justice David Souter. He was a remarkable and welcome surprise on the bench--touted (by WHCOS John Sununu) as a "home run for conservatives," he turned out to be a solid liberal who kept the court from lurching to the right for many years. Thank you, Justice Souter.
my latest for the New Yorker, on the incredible shrinking Establishment Clause. www.newyorker.com/news/the-led...
When it figured Donald Trump was coming for it, WilmerHale had a "Better Call Paul" moment.
www.newyorker.com/news/persons...
Will the administration demonstrate a learning curve? It’s been pretty flat line, so far, but they are reaping the consequences.
I have overestimated this Supreme Court before, and this may be another instance, but at least this instance of Trumpian insubordination appears to have been too much for the justices to stomach. Except two, of course.
Also notably, the government lawyer's assertion was no flights were "then planned." In fact, he said the government reserved the right to have flights Saturday. So you have to bend over backwards, and then some, to trust administration in this situation (and others).
His colleagues in majority clearly did not think that assertion was trustworthy--with good reason. Notably, even Alito/Thomas stress the "Executive must proceed under the terms of our order," which requires sufficient notice and time to challenge removal. Trump administration on thin ice w/ Court.
Justice Alito's dissent is out in the Alien Enemies Act deportation case, joined by Justice Thomas. His issues with the court's "unprecedented and legally questionable relief" are technical, but I am struck by his reliance on government lawyer's assertion that no flights were planned for Fri or Sat.
As Judge Wilkinson reminded us in Abrego Garcia, the government should have nothing to fear from due process if it is confident in its case, here that that migrants are in fact gang members and that the Alien Enemies Act can be used against them.
This extraordinary speed and apparent supermajority is the predictable and deserved result of the administration’s duplicity and defiance. The justices are signaling that they’ve had it. Will the administration get the message? Let’s hope, although past performance suggests no learning curve
Deporting them. The administration’s compliance was a scant paper in English, with scantier notice. The court has just stepped in, 7-2, to block any removal until further order. The two of course, are Alito and Thomas. But what a rebuke.
Thank God for the Supeme Court—a sentence I rarely write these days. Every day the administration’s defiance becomes more breathtaking and more blatant. Yesterday it was poised to violate a Supreme Coirt ruling that required it to provide due process to alleged Venezuelan gang members before…
fixed, thank you
"The stakes here for the rule of law couldn’t be higher, but the right approach for courts should be familiar to anyone who has raised a toddler. Every parent eventually learns the importance of clear rules and logical consequences. In dealing with this Administration, the Justices should, too."
Please sign up for New Yorker Daily to read rest: "We’re past the point of wondering whether the Administration will violate court orders... The pressing question is how forcefully judges will respond—and whether the Supreme Court will back them up. Developments this week bode well... "
The AmLaw 100 numbers for Big Law are out. No 1: Kirkland & Ellis, profits per partner $9.2 million, up 16%. You think they could have afforded to stand up to Donald Trump? (Spoiler: they caved, preemptively). No. 2: Latham & Watkins: ppp $7 million, up 23%. (Also caved.)
The people of Iowa--the American people--understand the danger posed by a government that illegally snatches people off the streets and sends them to a foreign prison without any court review. If it could happen to Kilmar Abrego Garcia it could happen to you. www.nytimes.com/2025/04/15/u...
