Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick: "Sneak Preview: What Trump’s First Big Loss At SCOTUS Means"

Date: March 5, 2025
Host: Dahlia Lithwick
Guest: Mark Joseph Stern

Episode Overview

This special edition of Amicus provides immediate analysis of the Supreme Court's first significant rejection of a Trump administration emergency application. The heart of the episode explores the legal, political, and institutional fallout from a 5-4 Supreme Court order requiring the Trump administration to resume $2 billion in foreign aid payments—a pivotal challenge to Trump's efforts to withhold congressionally appropriated funds. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discuss the awkward optics surrounding the ruling, its legal underpinnings, the justices’ alignments, and wider implications for rule of law and separation of powers.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Supreme Court’s Order Against the Trump Administration

• On Wednesday morning, SCOTUS issued a brief but significant order rejecting Trump’s request to freeze a lower court directive that forced the government to release $2 billion in foreign aid funds already owed to contractors ([00:05–00:40]).
• The decision split 5-4: Chief Justice John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett joined the liberal bloc, sharply rebuffing the administration’s position ([00:05], [02:32]).

2. Context and the Awkward Optics

• The episode highlights the timing: the order was released the morning after Trump’s joint session of Congress address, and after his public expression of gratitude to Chief Justice Roberts ([02:02–02:24]).

• Dahlia describes Trump's handshake and “I won’t forget” comment to Roberts as "horrifying," especially given Roberts’ decisive vote against Trump's wishes in the ruling ([02:04], [02:24]).

  “I sort of love the poetic irony of Donald Trump saying to the chief, I won’t forget it. And the chief being like, it’s forgotten. Move on.”
  —Dahlia Lithwick ([03:40])

3. Analysis of the Underlying Cases

• Two consolidated cases—AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. Department of State and Global Health Council v. Trump—involved international nonprofits and contractors whose payments for completed foreign assistance work were halted by the administration ([03:40]).

• The initial ruling by Judge Amir Ali (a Biden appointee) directed the administration to restore payments, but the government resisted, citing dubious contractual loopholes ([04:21], [05:05]).

  “The government refused. It claimed...magical language that allowed them to cancel them willy nilly and even refused to pay for services already rendered.”
  —Mark Joseph Stern ([05:05])

4. Judicial Intransigence and Escalation

• Mark recounts how the Trump administration tried to outmaneuver repeated judicial orders, risking being held in contempt. Instead, Judge Ali issued a series of stern reminders, culminating in the administration’s emergency appeal to the Supreme Court ([05:05–05:50]).

  “This was one of the most brazen acts of intransigence, if not outright defiance by the government in the face of a court order that we have seen in a very long time.”
  —Mark Joseph Stern ([06:18]).

5. The Court’s Split and Implications

• Both hosts emphasize just how close the final vote was, with the swing votes of Roberts and Barrett standing out ([05:50–06:36]).
• The ruling is framed as a reaffirmation—albeit a fragile one—of the principle that the executive must follow both congressional budgeting and federal judicial orders.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Baby as Metaphor for Chaos:

  “I’m in a hotel room in Arizona and there’s a baby screaming in the room next door… I think she speaks for us all.”
  —Dahlia Lithwick ([01:17])

• Sam Alito Dissed:

  “Especially Sam Alito today, who’s never whined more like a baby than in this dissent.”
  —Mark Joseph Stern ([01:33])

• "Sick Burn" from Chief Justice:

  “That is a sick burn as far as I’m concerned. And I think the chief is either laughing quietly to himself… or like shivering in a corner worried that Trump is going to turn on him and use that immunity decision against the man who wrote it.”
  —Mark Joseph Stern ([02:56])

Key Timestamps & Segments

• 00:05–01:17 — Dahlia introduces the episode, frames the Supreme Court order, and acknowledges the “screaming baby” metaphor.
• 02:02–02:24 — Audio clip and discussion of Trump’s interaction with Chief Justice Roberts after the Congressional address.
• 02:32–03:40 — Mark provides context on the timing of the order and the Supreme Court’s possible motivations.
• 03:40–05:05 — Dahlia breaks down the underlying legal dispute and Judge Amir Ali’s rulings.
• 05:05–05:50 — Mark details administration’s reluctance to comply and the court’s escalating responses.
• 05:50–06:36 — Discussion of the Supreme Court’s razor-thin split and what it signals for the rule of law.

Tone and Takeaways

• The tone is urgent, slightly sardonic, and heavy with concern for the current state of American legal norms.
• Both Lithwick and Stern underscore the precarious nature of legal checks on executive power, even as they find dark humor in the situation ("baby Alito," "sick burn").
• The episode cements this order as an early, dramatic reminder in the new Trump administration’s term that even a conservative Supreme Court can—just barely—still demand the president respect the law.

Final Thoughts

This episode provides an accessible yet in-depth breakdown of a momentous Supreme Court order, weaving acute legal analysis with sharp wit and a palpable sense of institutional worry. For listeners seeking insight into the Trump administration’s legal tactics and the high court’s complex role as a check on executive authority, this conversation between Lithwick and Stern is essential—and, at times, ruefully entertaining—listening.