The Anti-Trump Cases That Have Changed The Game

Summary

Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Episode Summary: "The Anti-Trump Cases That Have Changed The Game"

Introduction

In the April 26, 2025 episode of Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick, hosted by Slate Podcasts, Dahlia Lithwick delves into the seismic legal battles initiated during the first 100 days of Donald Trump's second inauguration. The episode, titled "The Anti-Trump Cases That Have Changed The Game," explores the clash of legal narratives surrounding the Trump administration's efforts to reshape American law and governance, and the robust legal resistance mounted against these efforts.

Celebrating 100 Days of Trump's Second Inauguration

Dahlia Lithwick begins by marking the 100-day milestone of Donald Trump's second term, highlighting the administration's aggressive use of executive orders—nearly 140 issued, which have sparked over 100 lawsuits. She sets the stage by presenting two contrasting views among experts: one sees the Trump administration as a highly effective force dismantling democratic norms with assistance from organizations like the Heritage Foundation and Project 2025, while the other views it as a disorganized effort prone to failures in policy and courtrooms.

Quote:

"Trump has issued almost 140 executive orders, sparking over 100 lawsuits." ([01:37])

Democracy Forward's Role in Legal Resistance

Central to the episode is an in-depth conversation with Sky Perriman, President of Democracy Forward. Perriman recounts the organization's genesis in early 2017, formed in response to the Trump administration's initial actions such as the Muslim ban and efforts to undermine the popular vote count in the 2016 election. Recognizing a gap in legal resistance due to insufficient legal resources, Democracy Forward emerged to champion litigation against unlawful executive actions.

Quote:

"Democracy Forward was founded to meet that moment and to fill that gap." ([04:54])

Perriman details the organization's expansion under her leadership in 2021, particularly after the January 6th insurrection, emphasizing the ongoing threat to American democracy and the need for sustained legal challenges against autocratic tendencies.

Key Legal Battles Against the Trump Administration

The episode highlights several critical areas where Democracy Forward has concentrated its efforts:

1. Executive Orders and Policy Overreach: Challenging actions such as funding freezes for federal programs, deportations lacking due process, mass firings authorized by DOGE, and the shutdown of Voice of America.

2. Alien Enemies Act Cases: Perriman discusses the complex litigation surrounding the use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport individuals to prisons like El Salvador's CECOP, which poses severe risks to detainees' rights and due process.

3. Data Privacy and Government Overreach: Cases involving attempts by figures like Elon Musk and Doge to exploit sensitive personal data held by agencies like the Social Security Administration.

Quote:

"The President of the United States and his federal agencies telling people that they could not say or act on certain concepts. That is a violation of the First Amendment of our Constitution." ([45:51])

The Power of the Courts

A significant portion of the discussion focuses on the pivotal role of the federal courts in checking the administration's power. Perriman emphasizes that despite claims to the contrary, the judiciary remains a crucial arena for defending constitutional rights. She asserts that "people do have power, but to utilize that power, they have to go to new places. And that place right now is the federal courts in this country." ([11:29])

The conversation underscores how judges across the political spectrum have consistently upheld the rule of law, issuing orders that challenge the administration's overreach and enforcing transparency and accountability.

Supreme Court Intervention in Alien Enemies Act Cases

Later in the episode, Dahlia Lithwick speaks with Mark Joseph Stern about a landmark Supreme Court order concerning the Alien Enemies Act cases. This unprecedented move saw the Court issue a per curiam decision overnight, halting the deportation of migrants from the Northern District of Texas to El Salvador. The order was notable not only for its speed but also for bypassing traditional Supreme Court protocols, such as waiting for dissenting opinions to be drafted.

Quote:

"It could absolutely be a faint or a fake out. Up until that moment, the government was acting in extraordinary bad faith." ([66:59])

Stern elaborates on the significance of the Court's action, suggesting that it signals a waning presumption of regularity in the administration's actions and highlights a potential shift in judicial attitudes toward executive overreach.

Impact and Future of Legal Resistance

The dialogue concludes with an exploration of the broader implications of these legal battles. Perriman expresses optimism that the current crisis presents an opportunity to catalyze meaningful change within the legal and democratic frameworks of the United States. She advocates for continued, organized legal resistance as a means to rebuild and strengthen constitutional protections.

Quote:

"There is an opportunity in crisis to build a catalyst for change." ([45:51])

Additionally, Perriman discusses the interconnectedness of various legal cases, emphasizing that actions in one area can have ripple effects across others, thereby reinforcing the collective effort to uphold democracy.

Conclusion

Dahlia Lithwick wraps up the episode by reaffirming the critical importance of legal resistance in safeguarding democracy against executive overreach. She acknowledges the fears and challenges faced by judges, lawyers, and advocates but underscores the resilience and determination of those fighting in the courts to protect constitutional rights. The episode serves as a comprehensive examination of the legal struggles during Trump's second term, highlighting both the obstacles and the victories achieved through persistent litigation.

Notable Quotes

• Sky Perriman: "People do have power, but to utilize that power, they have to go to new places. And that place right now is the federal courts in this country." ([11:29])

• Dahlia Lithwick: "We do not remove people from the country without process. You have a federal judge on the D.C. circuit pointing out that in World War II, this country gave people that were accused of being Nazis more process than this administration is seeking to give people just because of the color of their skin or where they perceive that they're from or what they perceive that they've been doing." ([22:57])

• Sky Perriman: "Democracy depends on a government that works for all people. And we are showing with our work that the courts are a really important function in ensuring that that's happening." ([15:57])

Final Thoughts

This episode of Amicus provides a compelling narrative of the ongoing legal battles that define the early days of Trump’s second term. Through insightful interviews and detailed analysis, Dahlia Lithwick and her guests illuminate the critical role of the judiciary and legal organizations like Democracy Forward in maintaining the balance of power and protecting democratic institutions.

Transcript

[Lowes Advertiser]

Spring into deals with fresh savings at Lowes right now. Get four stay green or premium two cubic foot mulch bags for just $10 plus get up to 35% off. Select major appliances and save $50 on every $500 you spend on select LG appliances. Shop in store or online today. Lowes we help you Save valid through 430. Selection varies by location while supplies last. See [e-mail] for more details or qualifying items. Excludes Alaska and Hawaii.

[Ryan Reynolds]

Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. I don't know if you knew this, but anyone can get the same Premium Wireless for $15 a month plan that I've been enjoying. It's not just for celebrities. So do like I did and have one of your assistant's assistants switch you to Mint Mobile today. I'm told it's super easy to [e-mail].

[Dahlia Lithwick]

Switch upfront payment of $45 for 3 month plan equivalent to $15 per month Required intro rate first 3 months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra. See full terms at Mintmobile do hi, I'm Dahlia Lithwick. Welcome to Amicus Slate's podcast about the courts and the law and the Supreme Court.

[Sky Perriman]

People do have power, but to utilize that power they have to go to new places. And that place right now is the federal courts in this country.

[Ryan Reynolds]

Maybe. Finally, the majority is not granting Trump the presumption of regularity that he does not deserve.

[Dahlia Lithwick]

This week we are marking exhaustedly the 100 day anniversary of Donald Trump's second inauguration as President of the United States of America. Two clashing legal narratives are currently duking it out as experts try to explain how radical the attack on the law has been. One holds that the Trump administration has been free, freakishly gifted at taking over all the levers of power, aided and abetted by the Heritage foundation and Project 2025, and brilliant planning and execution in implementing the Viktor Orban playbook. The other holds that this is all a clown car full of mediocre clowns who are terrible at governance and keep tripping over their own feet in policy matters and in court. As we rear up on this 100th day in office, a few things can be true. Trump has issued almost 140 executive orders, sparking over 100 lawsuits. The Trump administration may be destroying the rule of law by virtue of power, numbers and fear, but they also lose in court all the time and that matters tremendously. Speaking of losing in court, later on in the show, Mark Joseph Stern is going to help us consolidate the many moving parts of the Alien Enemies act cases, including that very significant order from the Supreme Court last weekend and the valiant effort of Judge Paul Azinis and others to elicit basic facts from the Trump administration as to the whereabouts of disappeared individuals and to ensure some kind of due process for people at risk of imminent rendition. But first, the first hundred days. And let's just stipulate there are too many legal challenges and too many courts to keep track of, but they are also too important to let slide, and as you're about to hear, too effective to ignore. So we wanted to mark the 100 day milestone with Sky Perriman, president of Democracy Forward, who has been at the tip of the spear in litigation challenging the unlawful actions of the Trump administration. Since week one, Democracy Forward has been involved in major lawsuits challenging the spending freeze for federal programs, the deportations without due process, challenging the authority of DOGE to conduct mass firings and steal data, and the shuttering of Voice of America. And that's a tiny fraction of it. Since Inauguration Day, Democracy Forward has filed more than 55 legal actions and launched 82 investigations. We know a lot more today about what works in court and why than we did back in January, thanks in part to Sky's work. So, Sky Perriman, welcome back to Amicus.

[Sky Perriman]

It's so good to be here.

[Dahlia Lithwick]

And I think I want to ask you first, and I know we did this when we talked to you last time, but just explain the sort of arc, the genesis of Democracy Forward, how you, you found yourself there, what it is that you have sought to do since the election. Just give me the sort of elevator pitch of what it is that you wanted to work on in standing up as a bulwark against kind of creeping authoritarian rule in America.

[Sky Perriman]

We were founded in the early months of 2017, in the first Trump administration, when in those early days we saw the administration also have its own version of shock and awe, the Muslim ban, rapidly seeking to intimidate people about voting right, questioning the popular vote count of the 2016 election because the president was upset that he did not win the popular vote in that election. And so really, the seeds of the election, denialism and misinformation and disinformation we started seeing in those early months of 2017. And there were lawyers that were going to court every single day at organizations like the ACLU and at big law firms. They were up for the task at that time. And the law was really making a difference in stopping harmful and unlawful activities. But the administration was doing a lot of things under the radar in federal agencies, in places like the Department of Education, the Department of Agriculture, the fda, you know, the Department of Health and Human Services, to roll back the rights of people, to deprive the American people of data and information. All of these things that were not really being cover on the front page of the newspapers, and that lawyers were not available to challenge. There were not enough lawyers to challenge the unlawful and harmful activities. And so Democracy Forward was founded to meet that moment and to fill that gap. And in the first Trump administration, the organization brought nearly 200 lawsuits against the first Trump administration and won really important victories to help people and communities across the country. And then towards the end of that administration, there was a real question, are all these lawyers really needed now to protect and advance democracy? The American people were understanding what was at stake. People were fed up with the way the Trump administration handled the COVID 19 pandemic, the callous disregard that they had for human life and for people in communities across the country. And so it looked like the federal landscape was going to shift a bit in 2021, when you had the election of President Biden and a federal executive that even if folks don't agree with everything they did, that an administration that definitely believed in the rule of law and in democracy and in serving the American people. But then January 6th happened, and we saw that this threat to American democracy and to the American people, because when we talk about threats to American democracy, we're talking about threats to the American people was not going away just because of one election cycle or because Donald Trump was leaving Washington, but was very real and was in communities across the country. And this far right extremism really showcased on January 6th. And so democracy Forward, instead of pulling back, actually pushed forward. I came on as CEO of the organization in the summer of 2021. After January 6th, I had been on the founding litigation team, left my big law job when it was clear that it was time for all lawyers to really do the work of protecting the American people, to be on that founding litigation team, and then left to become the general counsel of the American Colle of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which is the nation's leading organization of physicians dedicated to the health of women, and did some critical work with a phenomenal team there and with medical professionals across the country in really seeking to advance women's reproductive health care, including amidst generationally significant attacks. And then in the summer of 2021, I came back to Democracy Forward as the president and CEO in order to Build and scale the organization, right? Not to pull it back, but to move it forward because of this new paradigm that we're in in American life where there is a very real question about whether this country will continue on the pathway of seeking to achieve true democracy, an ideal that we've never truly achieved as a country, but we've always been on the path of trying to achieve, or whether we are going to continue to aggressively backslide into a more autocratic society. And so that's been the work of Democracy Forward over the past few. We've been filing cases in communities across the country where there have been efforts to ban books, to criminalize librarians, to criminalize doctors and medical professionals and ban reproductive healthcare, to tell people things that are totally ill informed and misinformation and disinformation, to suppress the right to vote. And then of course, we started about a year ago thinking about what would happen if the federal executive were to go the way it has, right, Were to be in a situation where you have a president that really wants to rapidly undermine the democracy in this country. A ecosystem of far right organizations, including legal organizations that you cover a lot. Dalia, that produced Project 2025, that wants to accelerate a backward looking agenda that is harmful to people and communities. What would we do in this country, especially looking at things like the Suprem, which is a court that of course was shaped by Donald Trump's presidency in so many ways and in ways that have really the American people have experienced with decisions like Dobbs and others. And so that was the work of Democracy Forward over the past year, really spending time getting ready to build legal cases that could be utilized in a moment like this one.

[Dahlia Lithwick]

Sky I said this in my lead up. The fact that we're 100 days in now and this isn't kind of a Hail Mary anymore. We have some real data and some real numbers to back up the claim that litigation and law still matters, that lawsuits still win. And when all this started 100 days ago, there was a lot of grumbling about, oh, nothing matters. It's all gonna, you know, depend on, like what John Roberts thinks. I don't think that's true anymore. And I wonder if we can just start by having you explain what we have learned from this litigation juggernaut that you're a part of and why it matters beyond just the idea that it should matter.

[Sky Perriman]

We've learned a lot. The first thing we've learned is that the American people do have power in this moment. And it doesn't feel as if we do. Right, because there's this onslaught and there is a campaign that the administration is engaging in to try to make people feel as if they don't have power. People are frustrated with Congress and find that they're not doing enough to protect the American people. And so you might say, well, who is it and what is it? And where are the American people gonna find their power? They have it, and we're using it, and you're seeing it in the courts. And so the first thing that we have learned is that the ability for people in this country, because of our Constitution and because of the rights that every single person in this country has, it does not matter who is in the White House. And you can't do away with it with the stroke of a pen, even if the president might try. But because of this system of democracy and our Constitution and our constitutional republic, people have the power to defend their rights. And they can do so through initiating litigation in the court. And in this country, you can initiate litigation in the court against the president and against the executive branch. And so the first thing that we've learned is that people do have power, but to utilize that power, they have to go to new places. And that place right now is the federal courts in this country. So the second thing we've learned is that the federal courts in this country, they're not going to be a silver bullet, but they are sure up to the task here. We have seen judges in communities across this country, in red communities, in blue communities, judges that have been appointed by Democratic presidents, judges that have been appointed by Republican presidents, judges that have been appointed by Donald Trump himself, all issue court orders defending the rights of people and saying, wait a second, slow down. Right? We need to investigate this. Or I think what you've done, Mr. President, or in your agency is you've done this without the authority you have. Or we're gonna look into more of what Elon Musk is doing, because the government is trying to be secret about that. And guess what? When you come to court, the courts can shine sunlight on that. And so we're really seeing the power of the people, and that power is being exercised through the courts, and that the courts are, in many cases, have been very much up to the task. So then the thing is. Well, what else have we learned? Well, we've learned that there is a lot of power in the types of things that district courts. And your listeners know more about the courts than I think most folks do. But just to make sure, if we've got people that Aren't as court followers, the district courts, right. The first place you go to file your lawsuits. Those courts have powers. They have powers to find facts. They have powers to issue emergency relief. They have powers to look at a situation and consider the arguments of everyone. Right. And make some initial and preliminary conclusions and then issue orders. And that's what we're seeing happening in the courts. When Donald Trump can't tell you from one day to the other whether Elon Musk is running the federal government or whether he's really just hanging around at Pennsylvania Avenue or what Doge is doing, the courts are there, and people can demand that information through the courts. And we're seeing them utilize those powers, which is not just issuing some preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order that makes the headlines. Right. Stopping something bad, which is really important. And they're doing a lot of that. But we're also seeing them utilize the powers of the court system in order to provide transparency and sunlight to the American people and to force the government to have to explain what it is doing, which is a requirement when you live in a democracy and when you have a government that is supposed to be comprised of, by, and for the people. So we're seeing that in the federal.

[Dahlia Lithwick]

Courts, you must get asked to sign on to litigation like 40 times a day. I'm guessing at Democracy Forward, I mean, there are cases and cases and cases. Do you have a kind of back of the envelope animating theory of the kinds of cases that are the most important? Like, what's your triage system in terms of deciding which issues are the ones that you're gonna go all in on?

[Sky Perriman]

Well, our North Star at Democracy Forward is making sure that people that are harmed and people that are wronged by their government have the ability to get into court. And so that means that we get into court on a lot of issues, but we can't take on everything. Although we do sure try. And I think we've given this administration a run for the money over the past almost 100 days in really ourselves. And then also helping our partners and organizations across the country and lawyers across the country be able to make sure that we're getting into court on such a range of things. But we really seek to look at places where what the administration is doing will be deeply harmful to individual Americans lives every single day. So let me give you some examples. Elon Musk and Doge going to the Social Security Administration and seeking to take and do things with data that is about all of us, our personal and sensitive data, every Single person that has a Social Security number has data sitting over at the Social Security Administration. And without any type of vetting or protocols, we've seen Elon Musk come in and try to run roughshod over that. Right. That deeply affects individual Americans across this country. Not just people that rely on Social Security, but also people that, in good faith, are engaging with their society and with their government. Right. The government has information about all of us, and it has that information. And we have an implicit trust that it's not going to utilize that information in ways that are weaponizing it against our very people. And so we've been in court on that. That deeply affects every single American, our civil service in this country, the men and women who swear an oath to the Constitution, not to a political ideology, who have done career jobs working in places like the EPA or the Food and Drug Administration, keeping our medications safe, our food safe, every single day without applause, without corporate salaries. Right. Doing that work every day, you know, in administrations that were Republicans and administrations that were Democrats, through all the twists and turns and the COVID pandemic, all of those things, this is an administration now that's come in to try to fire and target those people and replace them with people that are not loyal to our Constitution or to the American people, but are only loyal to Donald Trump and his agenda that affects every single American across this country. It's not just about the federal workers. It affects all of us that are relying on a government that works for people to keep us safe every single day. So you see us in court on that, on the Alien Enemies act, and on the way in which this president is seeking to wield wartime powers and then even extend his power beyond even a wartime power which should not be invoked to remove people from the country without process. That is not a, quote, immigration issue. That is an issue that should concern every single American in this country. Because if the president of the United States and his administration can remove people from this country without process, they could do it to any of us. Right? And so the cases that we take at democracy forward are ones that the through line is about the rights of people, not about legal textbooks and what we're going to say in 20 years about democracy and the rule of law. But they're about people in this country having the government that they deserve. Democracy depends on a government that works for all people. And we are showing with our work that the courts are a really important function in ensuring that that's happening. And so that's how we look at our cases. At Democracy Forward, which also means that we work across so many issues and so many communities because of this through line, we don't live siloed lives. In many instances, the advocacy community and the legal community is very siloed around issues. And our model at Democracy Forward is to be able to cross those things, things to show that through line, to both amplify and help level up the wonderful work that's happening on an issue by issue basis in the ecosystem and with lawyers, and to be able to provide new and innovative strategies that can really help people in their everyday lives. And I think you've seen in this first 100 days the types of actions that the Trump administration is taking. Like, they understand that people don't live siloed lives. And so they may do something at the Social Security administration, but it might actually affect a range of other issues in communities than even the one they're targeting. And because our advocacy system, our legal system's not always set up for groups to be able to move so nimbly between those issues, at times, a lot of people have gotten hurt because there haven't been swift legal actions challenging that type of conduct. That is really what we at Democracy Forward are seeking to do to meet this moment.

[Dahlia Lithwick]

I love what you're saying, sky, because it really dovetails with what we've been trying to do on the show, which is take what feels like an abstraction. Abstraction, right. Something from a textbook, an 18th century law, and connect it up to real suffering of real people in ways that are not abstract at all. I do want to talk a little bit about those. I don't call them deportation cases or immigration cases like you. I think we can only call them renditioning or disappearing cases. But it is fascinating that these illegal deportations to El Salvador have become, I think, a kind of a galvanizing legal story for Americans. And we're seeing the polling that suggests that across ideological lines, Americans think that Donald Trump should follow what the law says and the court says on this issue. Right. Which is supposed to be a signature issue of immigration. And I want to talk in a moment about the orders from Judge James Boasberg in D.C. and Judge Paula Sinis in Maryland. Before I even get there, I'd love to hear your thoughts on what it is about this case that seems to have had the kind of salience and staying power that allows it to break through. Is it about mass deportations without due process? Is it about that message, this could happen to you? Or is it that, you know, Trump seems to be inviting a Supreme Court order. And it looks as though this is going to be the kind of quote, unquote, constitutional crisis that he asked for. I mean, what about the El Salvador door cases is capturing public imagination in a way that I think if you'd asked me three weeks ago, I would not have said this would have lasted the outrage.

[Sky Perriman]

This administration, and by the way, the political movement that is behind it, the far right in America, they want to have us believe that people are polarized. Because if you believe that people are polarized, then you can try to seek and will power in ways. And what we know about the American people is that there is just so much more that they agree on than that they disagree on. That's a real threat to this administration. And so I think, and you saw this with family separation in the first Trump administration. That is beyond the pale. We do not do that in America. That is what we want to believe about our country. We do not do that in America. And you saw Americans of all political stripes feel that way. And you have that here, too, in this country. We do not remove people from the country without process. You have a federal judge on the D.C. circuit pointing out that in World War II, this country gave people that were accused of being Nazis more process than this administration is seeking to give people just because of the color of their skin or where they perceive that they're from or what they perceive that they've been doing right. And so that is deeply offensive to the vast majority of Americans in this country. And then on top of it, judges, judges that, by the way, were appointed by Republican presidents in many instances have issued orders. And the administration gleefully just seeks to say, well, we don't have to do that. That's also not who we are as Americans. And you see that across the board. Over 80% of people in this country, the vast, vast majority of people in poll after poll, we follow court orders in this country. So I think the combination of those two things, this isn't who we are. And what are you doing, man? We follow court orders. And that goes for you, too, President Trump. And it's hard for people to believe that, quote, it can happen here. And this has been one of the first examples, not the only example, but a major example of the fact that, yes, it can happen here, and it is. And the only way we're going to get at it is through it with the power of people and with people using their power in the courts.

[Dahlia Lithwick]

More in a moment with Sky Perriman.

[ACLU Advertiser]

This episode is brought to you by the ACLU the Trump administration is pushing a dangerous and sweeping agenda to control our bodies, our families and our lives. President Trump has signed far reaching executive orders that target transgender people, their rights and their health care, but the ACLU and their partners are in court fighting back. Meanwhile, the ACLU is also at the Supreme Court fighting to protect the future of transgender people's freedom and bodily autonomy for all. US v. Scormetti centers on a Tennessee law restricting healthcare access for trans youth. Tennessee has asked the Supreme Court to expand the ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade. This would not only violate the constitutional right to equal protection under the law, it hurts everyone's freedom to control their bodies and lives. Learn [e-mail] autonomy.

[Dahlia Lithwick]

Mother's Day is around the corner and if you want to give a high quality, super thoughtful and affordable, luxe looking gift to the special and strong woman in your life, check out our friends at Quint's and what they have on offer. I have just ordered the revive nylon fold over crossbody bag and it is so stinking glamorous that I think I'm going to be wearing it forever. All Quince Items are priced 50 to 80% less than similar brands. Quince only works with factories that use safe, ethical and responsible manufacturing practices and premium fabrics and finishes. Thoughtful time, Totally her. Shop Mother's Day at Quint's. Go to quince.comamicus for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.comamicus to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.comamicus this podcast is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever think about switching insurance companies to see if you could save some cash? Progressive makes it easy. Just drop in some details about yourself and see if you're eligible to save money when you bundle your home and auto policies. The process only takes minutes and it could mean hundreds more in your pocket. Visit progressive.com after this episode to see if you could save Progressive Casualty Insurance company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available. Available in all states. Let's return now to my conversation with Skye Perriman. Sky do you think I'm just really spitballing? But it's also this subset of cases again in Maryland and D.C. where you have the administration straight up saying like we made a mistake or we don't care what you say or we're throwing people on buses and moving them from one jurisdiction to another or oh wait, this isn't the government agency that's doing it anymore now. I mean, I think that there's like, an equal and opposite reaction from the judges that is in some sense, in response to just shocking conduct by Justice Department lawyers. And so there's a way in which, again, you know, I think for me, the intractable question that I can't get my head around is like, really, this is the Hill you want to die on? You admit that you made a mistake, and you won't bring Kilmar Abrego Garcia back because immigration is your jam. I mean, it feels as though the judges are reacting in perfect proportion to the lawlessness of both the arguments and the carelessness and the sort of deliberate oopsie trolling. And so there's a weird way in which this becomes a subset of cases in which the Trump administration is almost daring, requiring the judges to do something.

[Sky Perriman]

And their gamble isn't working, because what they've done is they've exposed themselves for who they are. So now you do have a signature issue on which the president wanted a Made for TV moment. The president gives a speech in the halls of the Department of Justice where he makes it clear that he views that department as his own personal lawyers. And he says in that speech, you're going to wake up and see what we've done. It's going to be so beautiful. We're going to remove gang members from the country, or whatever he said at the time where he was almost gloating before anything happened, they wanted to plan a Made for TV moment. This is a total autocratic playbook. They could look at a community of people, label them, tell stories about them that they were in gangs, and then wield their power in very unprecedented and unlawful ways. Right. We're not at war. We haven't been invaded. But then, you know, wield their power in these ways, signing this proclamation, by the way, in the dark of night, we later learn in the litigation, you started seeing in real time what was happening, and the American people started seeing in real time what was happening. It turns out that people were loaded onto buses and were put on planes, and there had been no process at all. We don't know if these are gang members. Many of them are not. What we've really seen in these cases is the power that the courts have. We're seeing judges, regardless of what their views are on these issues. And I think it's important to note that in all of these cases, these have been at preliminary stages. Right. We're not even at a stage where there are final orders about about what the Alien Enemies act says about whether the President can invoke it. I mean, we believe he cannot. Right. But there's all of these open questions in the cases where the cases are in their very early stages, and even in those early stages where really the courts are just trying to ensure that they can hear and understand what's going on, that people get process. You have the administration just really seeking to fill out these court orders, but I think this was an area where they wanted this made for TV moment, and they've certainly created some made for TV moments. But it's been in a different direction because the American people have seen now what is at stake and the extremism and the real harms, I think, of operating this way. The fact we were able to get into court has totally turned this thing on its head.

[Dahlia Lithwick]

We've both said, now there's too many cases to follow. There's the firings, right? There's the Humphreys executors cases. There's Doge. There's data. There's a lot happening. And my sense is that it's just too much to track. And even people who are committed to it are finding it all hard to track. And I wonder if you have a kind of useful rubric or template for thinking about, you know, just for an average listener who isn't in court every day doing what you're doing, how to think about what really matters, what matters last. I know it all feels equally existential, but is there a way to sort of help listeners feel good about, here's a system for thinking about this massive litigation onslaught and how to keep track of what's important?

[Sky Perriman]

I think there's a few ways that we can look at these things. I mean, there are the category of cases where the President really is seeking to alter the American people's constitutional rights. Rights, okay, that's birthright citizenship. That is, in fact, the Alien Enemies act cases. Right. Because those are about due process and the due process that is afforded to all people. Those will be about the President's power vis a vis Congress's power. The cases that raise that you have the spending cases, the funding freeze cases, the President's authority to or non authority to fight certain officials and officers. Right. So I think that those are one category of cases which is, what is this President doing? And how are the courts responding to an attempt to alter and diminish the American people's constitutional rights? Then you have another category of cases that's really about what this administration is doing and how they are are deploying individuals who are not accountable or who wish to not be accountable to the American people. And that's the Elon Musk, that's Doge. But you can also put many of the civil service cases in that, right? Because you have attempts by this administration to remove people who have had a responsibility to the Constitution, to the American people, the non partisan independent civil service, to remove those people, replace them them with partisan loyalists. And so I think that's the sort of the way in which our government functions, how it's functioning, who is being able to influence it. So I think there's that category of cases and then I would say there's the cases about the services and needs of the American people. You could think about those as some of the quote, Project 2025 cases where you know, his attempt to decimate the Department of Education, his attempt to decimate USAID, the policies that we are going to soon see the heads of his agencies start implementing in some quiet ways and in other louder ways throughout the federal government that really affect the way in which individuals operate in their daily lives. Right. People that have kids, sending their kids to school, people that want to be educated, that kind of thing. So I think there's those kind of three categories. This constitutional rights and limits of the President's authority, authority as well as the constitutional rights of people. The cases around who gets to influence the government and how that's functioning and what types of transparency or not, you know, the law requires. And then what I call the kitchen table cases. Right. These Project 2025 cases where the President is seeking to do a range of things as a policy matter that he's not doing through Congress. Right. He's trying to do a range of things as a policy matter from the Executive branch that are deeply harmful to the well being of the American people and in many instances are unlawful. Then of course there's overlap. Right. Because some of the things that he's doing in those kitchen table cases affect individuals constitutional rights. So it's not that they're completely independent rubrics, but I try to think of them in those three categories.

[Dahlia Lithwick]

That's actually insanely helpful because I think that we get hyper focused on the things that matter to us and it's easy to say the other things matter less. But I think I loved what you said sky, about like we have to think across silos. And so even if we are assiduously following the firings cases or the Voice of America case, you know, like it all is interconnected and part of the whole Check me if I'm wrong. But the whole sort of Steve Bannon, flood the zone with shit theory is to atomize, isolate, cut off, you know, appeal to people's parochial self interest. It's very, very useful to say, yes, there are buckets of cases, but also at the same time to say everything is interconnected. And I think, you know, it's one of the reasons that at 100 days, a win in one case has knock on effects right all around the judicial branch. And I, I do want to talk for one second sky, about the judges. I don't think I expected the judges to acquit themselves in court quite such a robust fashion. And I think it's contagious in a way. I think that when a couple of judges step forward and say, you know, not in my courtroom or I don't care, cancel your vacation or like, did you just lie to me? Which is what we're starting to see. We're seeing something again that is crossing silos and also I think in many ways challenging the notion that judges are always over cautious and too reactive and too slow. You've thought a lot about, about this moment we're entering right now, which is law runs out of road when a judge issues a ruling and the administration just rolls over them. Right? And I think we keep saying on this show we need contempt findings, we need fines, we need state bars to start going after people. It's not good enough to be angry on the bench. There need to be consequences. And I would love, love to hear your theory of the case about how close we are to a judge somewhere imposing meaningful consequences for lawyers who seem to feel that they're just bulletproof sky, that they can walk into courtrooms and say things that aren't true, misrepresent Supreme Court holdings. Just the level of audacity is really different from last time. What is in the toolbox for a judge who is running out of patience with this and who understands, as you and I understand, that, you know, Pam Bondi and the federal marshals are not going to be the source of discipline.

[Sky Perriman]

Well, let me start by saying what we just need, I think, to continue to reflect on and not bury the lead here. The reason we are having this conversation right now is because the lawyers and people who are willing to go to court as clients and the judges are all doing their jobs, right? So we are having this conversation because a major power that the American people have, which is the ability to go into court and to initiate litigation, to defend their rights, is working. And so as A result, you have a president that doesn't want to be accountable to the people, doesn't want to be accountable to the checks and balances that are in place that's now on a rampage against lawyers and the judiciary. And part of that is to skirt court orders. Right. And to thumb their nose at the judiciary. So I just want to say that let's not bury the lead. And the reason I wanted to start there is that I think part of the strategy is to try to get people to give up. And so if you go in and say, well, it doesn't matter what you order, Judge, I'm not going to do it. And there's a whole national conversation about how well the courts may be doing good today, but we really don't think they're going to be able to check the president because he's not going to follow their orders anyway. That's sort of plays into the hand that they want, which is to convince people that they have no power and that there is nothing that can be done. And so far, you're seeing lawyers, communities across the country, and judges all reject that right and show that there is a lot of good fight in this and that there is a lot of impact that can be had through the courts. And so then we have to deal with actually what's transpiring in many of the cases that we are litigating. We will go in and win a court order. And then immediately we get concerning calls from people across the country where they are experiencing or believe that they are experiencing that the government is not complying. And we are raising those as our lawyers in other cases with judges. And the judges are being very clear, even in cases that aren't making the headlines, that their orders need to be complied with. And the Department of Justice is having to come in, in status report after status report and report on compliance. And I do want to say in many of those cases, we're seeing that that level of heavy oversight by the court is making a difference in ensuring that people are getting the relief that they are entitled to for the courts. It's still not normal, by the way, that we have to spend resources. We're spending resources. And by the way, the American people's resources are being spent with the Department of Justice, you know, going in and wasting people's time through engaging in conduct that's never going to fly. Then you have the cases like Mr. Garcia's case, like our Alien Enemies act case, where the administration appears to be taking a calculated risk of position to push beyond limits and to suggest that somehow the executive doesn't have to follow court orders or that there's a question about whether these court orders are binding. And in those cases, that's where you're seeing the types of things that people have labeled. Labeled as approaching a constitutional crisis. And I think that what you're about to see over the coming weeks in these post 100 days is you're about to see a range of courts start utilizing tools that the judiciary has. Not just. I'm giving you a scorned conversation from the bench. Right. But start utilizing tools that the judiciary has. That includes the ability to impose criminal contempt, contempt, civil contempt. Both of them are highly significant. I think in many cases, you're going to see both, I think. But civil contempt of something not to be underestimated, it really can require that the government have to redress the harms that it has created, including in not following court orders. And while, you know, it may be true in some sense that, like, courts don't have an army, I mean, that's what people say. The courts have a lot of powers to enforce their orders, including, by the way, there is precedent that the U.S. marshals actually have to follow what the courts direct, not what the Attorney General directs if there is a conflict there. So we're about to see a lot of those things play out. If the administration continues on, I think what is a real collision course here. But the other thing we're seeing is the political and people accountability. This is not something that the American people, people are tolerating whether or not they agree with a court order. Right. In this country, we follow court orders, and they are not optional. And so I think you're gonna see that squeeze, too, as we continue to have record numbers of people in town halls across the country. The President's allies having to cancel town halls. Cause they don't have explanations for what's going on. So I think you're gonna see a real combination of the power of the courts and the power of people. And of course, eventually that could also motivate Congress. At some point, we hope.

[Dahlia Lithwick]

Sky I want to end maybe where you and I started when we talked in the fall, but certainly at the beginning of these hundred days, I talked to authoritarianism expert Kimlaine Shepley, and I talked to Judge Nancy Gertner. And what they were hoping for, I think, in some sense, was that the legal resistance was a kind of a theater of, you know, showing up. It was important, you know, as Professor Shepley said, to just throw sand in the gears create friction, slow things down. I think that we don't feel anymore as though this is just enough to slow their roll. I think that we are starting to see at this 100 day marker that there actually are real material wins that are happening. And as you have suggested over and over in this conversation, there' real vulnerabilities being exposed. Elon Musk is like slinking off into the night. You know, we're seeing, as I said and as you have said, judges who are just not going to swallow bad faith lies, real choke points that could be important going forward. And I guess I just would love to end with your thoughts on, again, what is the data showing us about. About where we need to keep pushing harder and where we need to maybe raise our expectations for what the legal resistance can actually accomplish. Because I think it's more than sand in the gears now.

[Sky Perriman]

Oh, I think it's more than sand in the gears. But one of my sort of philosophies and one of the philosophies we've had at Democracy Forward is that there is opportunity in crisis to build a catalyst for change. And there is great opportunity. Opportunity in the overreach that we see from extremist political actors, including this administration. The administration's crusade against diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility is a key example of this. We sued on the DEIA executive order that the administration issued because it was essentially amounting to the President of the United States and his federal agencies telling people that they could not say or act on certain concepts. That is a violation of the First Amendment of our Constitution. Setting aside what anyone thinks about civil rights, diversity, equity, inclusion or accessibility, which by the way, the vast majority of people actually support when it's not in an acronym form. But setting that aside, it's a huge First Amendment violation. We were able to win the first federal court order setting that out right and setting that analysis out. And we've now seen other courts do the same. And so in their overreach, ICE entering houses of worship, that is a violation of a range of religious liberty protections in this country. And we have secured an order in Maryland on behalf of the religious communities that we represent to keep ICE from being able to do that based on that. So there will be opportunities in their overreach to not just throw sand in the gears and to help slow things, but to materially show the courts and the American people what is at stake and I think to be able to begin to build back and to rebuild some of the rights structures that have been so decimated by the ecosystem of the far right, legal groups and movement. Right. And so this, I think, is a real opportunity. But it's also a time we know, and I don't want to minimize this, that people are getting hurt every single there's not a single American in this country whose life has been made easier or better by what this administration has been doing. And the courts are very powerful. They're going to be a powerful tool that the American people have if we continue to use it. But they are not the silver bullet in this time. And we're not going to be able to really stop all of the harm and all of the suffering. But I think we can do a whole lot and in doing that, hopefully show the path for a better and brighter future where we are back on the project of actually seeking to achieve our democracy as opposed to having to just hold on to what we had or to stop an accelerated backslide.

[Dahlia Lithwick]

Sky, you started this discussion by reminding us that there was a robust legal resistance in Trump 1.0. But I think it's also important to say that the fear this time is real. For judges, for lawyers, right. For legal academics. I mean, this is a really scary time. And it's just useful to remind ourselves that, as I suggested earlier, that that kind of courage is contagious, be it among judges or lawyers or advocacy groups or universities or government employees. Everyone is scared. And when we see people who show up in court and do what you do day after week after week, it's a reminder that none of us are alone in this fight. Sky Perriman is president of Democracy Forward, which has been at the absolute forefront in some of the litigation challenging the unlawful actions of the Trump administration since the very beginning of this hundred days. Sky, I thank you for your work and I thank you for helping us understand what it is that you're doing, why it is it is that you are doing it, and what it is we have to watch for next. It's always a treat to talk to you.

[Sky Perriman]

Thanks so much for having me.

[Dahlia Lithwick]

We're going to take a short break. When we come back, Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern joins me to talk through the many developments in the Alien Enemies act cases over the past seven days. It has been a lot to keep track of, but Mark is going to help all of us case catch up.

[Progressive Advertiser]

This podcast is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Fiscally responsible financial geniuses, monetary magicians. These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to Progressive and save hundreds because Progressive offers discounts for paying in full owning a home and more. Plus you can count on their great customer service to help you with when you need it. So your dollar goes a long way. Visit progressive.com to see if you could save on car insurance, Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states and situations.

[Peloton Advertiser]

This episode is brought to you by Peloton. Everyone has a reason to change. Growing old, heartbreak, a fresh start. Whatever it may be, Peloton is Peloton is here to get you through life's biggest moments with workouts you can do on your time and motivation that keeps you coming back. Peloton's tread and All Access membership help you track progress in classes from runs to Pilates, making you stronger and your fitness goals a reality. Find your push, find your power peloton visit1peloton.com.

[Dahlia Lithwick]

Mark Joseph Stern joins me now to talk about the role the Supreme Court is now playing in brushing back the very worst of the Trump administration's overreach. And last weekend after the show had taped, we had a very, I think, improbable and pretty shocking Saturday morning order that came out of the Supreme Court suggesting that by a pretty big 7 to 2 margin, something was shifting in the way the justices were looking at the Alien Enemies act litigation. I think it was a big deal. Mark, can you just start by telling us what the Court's very brief, unsigned order said that came in the middle of the night, a time when justices usually have like face masks and like lip balm on?

[Ryan Reynolds]

The Supreme Court issued an order shortly before 1am on Saturday morning when most of us were asleep, prohibiting the Trump administration from deporting migrants from the Northern District of Texas, Texas to a Salvadoran prison until further action by the Supreme Court. And this was extraordinary in so many ways that we'll discuss. I mean, I think perhaps the timeline is the most fascinating thing here. The lawyers for the ACLU who represent some of these individuals started ringing alarms on Thursday that the government was planning to deport migrants from the Northern District of Texas to El Salvador. The door. They filed a flurry of papers in both Texas and in federal court in D.C. pleading for some kind of restraining order to stop this from happening, and arguing, I think quite correctly, that these individuals had not been afforded the due process that the Supreme Court had unanimously guaranteed to them earlier this month. But none of those courts acted quickly enough. And so on Friday, these attorneys ran to the Supreme Court and begged for some kind of emergency action stopping these deportations, which we now know were in motion when the Supreme Court Acted. There have been credible reports by NBC News and others that the government was loading migrants onto buses heading for the airport, where flights were reportedly waiting to go to the CECOP prison in El Salvador. So all of this was happening at the speed of light. And lo and behold, the Supreme Court, too, acted at the speed of light, issuing this order, putting a halt to the entire operation, saying, you may not deport these individuals. Didn't say much else. We don't really know exactly why it did what it did. We can guess, and we will. But only Justices Alito and Thomas noted their dissents from that order and did not even have time to write a full dissent to explain why. So this was maybe the fastest the Supreme Court has acted in the time I've been covering it. I've never seen them move this quickly. And it suggested to me that the majority of the justice justices were convinced that, as the ACLU argued, the Trump administration was on the brink of unlawfully deporting yet another batch of individuals accused of belonging to a gang without any evidence to a Salvadoran mega prison where their rights might be extinguished.

[Dahlia Lithwick]

And I just want to flag that. One of the things Sky Paraman said, I think, helped me think about why this matters, because when we first started covering Trump 2.0, there was a zeitgeist of like, ugh, why are we doing this? It only comes down to what the Supreme Court is going to say, and we know what they're going to say. This is an instance, Mark, where it really matters again, that the ACLU got wind of something that was hinky. Right. Buses are traveling from one jurisdiction to another. We have potential deportees who are getting notices that are only in English. They have no time to respond. No. No idea who they could possibly respond to. I mean, it was all just hinky. We would know none of this right now but for lawyers running into court. And so I think that we forget sometimes we think these are just performative actions. This is not a performative action. This is sticking a fork in what feels like this inexorable effort by the Trump administration to do whatever it wants. This is the thing that sends up a flare that we all now know about. And I. I think that really cannot be overstated.

[Ryan Reynolds]

One thing you noted which is so important to lift up is the government was busing these people from the Southern District of Texas to the Northern District of Texas. Why is that? Because the Southern District of Texas had a restraining order that prohibited the deportation of migrants to El Salvador. And so what the Government did, in response to that, was not just comply with. With the order, but try to sneak them to a different federal jurisdiction where they could get away with doing this. And so, you know, the fact that there were lawyers there ready to stand up immediately and say no is the difference between us being able to talk about these individuals still in the United States indisputably in the custody of the government, with rights that the courts can protect, and them being deported in the middle of the night over the weekend to another country where the government would claim we have no ability to free them. They're just gone forever. They're. That is maybe the difference for these people between life and death.

[Dahlia Lithwick]

Yeah. And I think that it's this sort of unremitting. Calvin Ball. Right. The unremitting. Like, we don't know who's doing it. We're not. We didn't. Nobody said you had to turn the planes around. Nobody said we couldn't bus from one, you know, district to another. This is the stuff that seems to be. Again, the order was very brief. We have no idea what intramural discussions happen. Happen Seems to be irking justices who might have been inclined even a couple weeks ago to go along with it. I'd love for you to unpack for a minute, Mark. And you wrote about this. There were many aspects of the Court's intervention. You noted the speed already, procedurally unprecedented in my lifetime. But not least of the weird procedural bits, here was the majority's decision to simply reload, release the per curiam decision, and sideline Justice Alito, who didn't actually get to publish his dissent until almost 24 hours later. That, too, is unheard of at the Supreme Court.

[Ryan Reynolds]

It's wild, and it's kind of hard to explain to people who aren't total Supreme Court nerds how weird this is, because it might sound sort of rational. Yeah, of course they put it out. Let the dissent drop later. No, no, no. The protocol at the Supreme Court, the honored tradition, is that everybody waits until the dissenters are finished writing to do anything. And that has led to some, I think, really unfortunate delays in the past. But it is a tradition that the court honors. Except last weekend when the court dropped this order because it knew that these individuals were about to be loaded onto planes. Right. It trusted the ACLU's representations here, and so it dropped the order before Justice Alito had time to write his dissent. Before, before the Trump Justice Department even had a chance to respond to the ACLU emergency application. Another huge breach of protocol that the majority would not have done if it weren't terrified that these migrants were about to be potentially lost forever into another country. And, you know, I think that reflects a profound lack of trust by the majority toward this regime, this administration. Justice Alito, when he finally did publish his dissent, was very wise, characteristically, and said, oh, we have no reason to disbelieve the government's representations that it wasn't going to deport people on Friday or Saturday. We should have just trusted the government. But the majority rightly did not trust the government because if you go and look at what government lawyers told the courts as this was unfolding, they did not swear that there would be no deportation to El Salvador. What they said was that they were working with limited amounts of information, and based on what they knew, the government did not intend to deport anyone on Friday, but that it reserved the right to deport people on Saturday. Something that Alito just totally excluded from his dissent, which makes it, I think, very dishonest and misleading. And I think it's an encouraging sign that the majority wasn't willing to just close its eyes to this reality that based on how the government acted in March when it first launched this round of flights to El Salvador and defied Judge Boasberg's order and lied to his face in court, there's just no good reason remaining to believe that the government was acting in good faith. And that, more than anything else is what's so pivotal about this order is that maybe finally the majority is not granting Trump the presumption of regularity that he does not deserve.

[Dahlia Lithwick]

So let's talk about what's happening in Judge James Boasberg's federal court in Washington. This was where this whole drama about these flights to seekot began. And I think when we spoke a couple weeks ago after the Supreme Court had intervened and lifted what was a class wide restraining order that Judge Boasberg had put into effect. And they said, and I remember we were pretty mad about it at the time, oh, the aclu, you know, filed for relief in the wrong court. And they can only do these, you know, seriatim petitions for relief, habeas petitions in the courts that they're being held. This was supposed to be game over for Judge Boasberg. He was still doggedly pursuing criminal contempt, questions about whether officials had defied his orders. But it seemed as though the game had sort of moved elsewhere. And now we have the news at the end of the week that the ACLU has actually gone right back to his court for another bite. At the Apple. And they have amended their complaint to, among other things, ensure that Andre Hernandez Romero is now a lead plaintiff in this case. Romero is the openly gay hairdresser that the government expelled to this seacot prison in El Salvador. I think it's very, very smart that the ACLU has amended the complaint to make Hernandez Romero a plaintiff in this litigation. Certainly the ACLU is not willing to say it's over in Judge Boasberg's court.

[Ryan Reynolds]

This is a super smart move that almost certainly preserves Judge Boasberg's jurisdiction over this case. Romero is now one of six plaintiffs named by the acl. You who are currently confined at SEA COT in El Salvador, not in an immigrant detention center in Texas or anywhere else. As Steve Laudic pointed out, the Supreme Court has held that the D.C. federal courts are the proper venue for people outside the United States. So even though the Supreme Court has held that people who are being detained within the US have to file their petitions in the court where they're being held, those who are already in an El Salvador prison almost surely have the right to, through their lawyers, file in DC's federal court. And that means Judge Boasberg's courtroom. So the ACLU has changed and expanded the class of plaintiffs that it is arguing for and said, look, we understand that we can't argue here in this courtroom for people who are held in Texas. They have to go through federal courts in Texas. That is now their burden. But we have at least 238people already expelled to SEACOT in El Salvador. They have to be able to sue somewhere. Right. We know that because the Supreme Court allowed Kilmar Abrego Garcia to sue in the United States even though he's already been deported to a Salvadoran prison. And so the ACLU argues they get to sue here under precedent established during the Guantanamo litigation years ago. I mean, this is ironclad law that people held overseas get to sue in the D.C. federal courts. I think this preserves Judge Boasberg's ongoing rule over this case and will allow him to issue further orders saying, A, that these individuals are in the constructive custody of the United States, and B, that the US Government has a constitutional obligation to facilitate their return at a bare minimum and afford them the due process that the Supreme Court has said they must receive.

[Dahlia Lithwick]

And I just want to really make explicit what is implicit here. Because if it is the case that as this litigation pings back and forth between the administration and the courts, and the administration continues to take the legal posture that, oh, well, so sad, too Bad. There's nothing we can do. They're in El Salvador. There's nowhere they can go to seek redress. It is so essentially important that the Supreme Court, which has now said, that's not going to work for us. Figure this out. Bring him home. For the ACLU to say to Judge Boasberg, you are still in charge of this case, and the argument that they're simply nothing but a shruggy emoji is not going to fly with the Supreme. Supreme Court. That feels like it's very, very much trying to keep this case alive in the face of court after court saying it's not adequate to say they're simply disappeared, they have no recourse.

[Ryan Reynolds]

Exactly right. And it means that the ACLU doesn't have to start from square one when representing these individuals who have tragically already been expelled to El Salvador. We know that Judge Boseberg thinks that the Alien Enemies act does not apply to these alleged members of a gang. We know that Judge Boberg thinks that these individuals have a constitutional right to due process before they are summarily deported to El Salvador. And at this stage, the Supreme Court has affirmed that aspect of his decision, unanimously said that these individuals must receive due process. And we know they were denied due process on March 15 when they were unlawfully loaded onto these planes and sent off to El Salvador, Salvador, and deposited in a prison in direct violation of Boasberg's orders. You know, Judge Boasberg was already trying to assist them through his criminal contempt proceedings. Remember, he told the government that it could purge contempt by asserting custody over these individuals and allowing them to fight for their right to return and get out of this prison. This is an even more direct path to allow Judge Boasberg to say, these folks have been denied their constitutional rights. The government needs to fix that. And it simultaneously allows him to doggedly continue to pursue criminal contempt proceedings and take away the option of purging the contempt and say, you know what? I've got a restraining order already saying, you need to help these people who've been unlawfully deported. So I'm just going to charge ahead with contempt. And, you know, you don't want to purge it. I don't need you to purge it. We're going full speed ahead. I don't know exactly how we'll handle it. This is my speculation, but he holds a lot more cards today than he did last week. And I always think it's a good thing when Judge Boasberg is holding all the cards.

[Dahlia Lithwick]

So let's end in some sense where we began and where we began with Sky Perriman, which is that we are inching ever closer to a direct. I don't know what else it can be other than some kind of impasse between the Supreme Court and the Trump administration. And I just want to note that in talking about Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland man who was by the administration's own admission, mistakenly deported to cecot, the Supreme Court, as you said, ordered him released from custody. Quotes Here we are, it's late April. Trump administration has neither, quote, facilitated nor, quote, effectuated nor, quote, cooperated nor done anything. They've not helped the district court, which is doggedly trying to do discovery. As far as I can tell, they haven't. And Trump has said as much, even said pretty please to President Bukele. In his 100 days in office interview with Time magazine at the end of the week, President Trump flat out said that his lawyers have not told him to ask Bukele for Abrego Garcia's release. And then he went on to more or less say I just do what my lawyers tell me to do and mumble, mumble, the lawyers are in charge and they tell me I don't have to do, do anything. I just want to ask you the question we keep talking about the executive, the unitary executive and this boundless power of the president. And is he now really just telling us that this is a unitary executive that he is in charge of completely? And also he works for Pam Bondi.

[Ryan Reynolds]

That would seem to be the situation. He is hiding behind his lawyers and his Justice Department department to say until they instruct me to do something, I don't have any obligation to do anything. And I guess this quote indicates that despite the Supreme Court's order here, despite the district court's ongoing efforts, the Justice Department has not told Trump that he needs to say to President Bukele, Abrego Garcia belongs back in the United States. Let him out of prison in El Salvador, which is pretty extraordinary. Disobedience of multiple federal court orders. Though not remotely surprising, I will say this been an exciting week in federal court with the case of Abrego Garcia because earlier the Justice Department filed a bizarre brief that I think was possibly co written with ChatGPT in which it claimed that the Supreme Court did not say exactly what the Supreme Court said. So it included a quote from the Supreme Court's order in this case and then said the Supreme Court didn't say that, which was quite bizarre and was accompanied by refusal to play ball with the plaintiff's ongoing efforts at discovery, which Judge Paulinis had allowed and which the Fourth Circuit had permitted. Judge Cenis then came in and said that the government was acting in a way that reflected, quote, willful and bad faith, refusal to comply with discovery obligations. It seemed like this was all heading for a huge clash. And then abruptly the government filed something under seal and the plaintiffs agreed to pause discovery so that the two sides could negotiate. So we don't know what's going on. This could absolutely be a faint or a fake out. Up until that moment, the government was acting in extraordinary bad faith. And it could still be that there is some glimmer of a chance that somebody in the administration decided to be the adult in the room and is trying to work with the plaintiffs to find a settlement here. I don't know. I wouldn't put any money on it, but it is a possibility.

[Dahlia Lithwick]

Mark Joseph Stern covers the courts and the law for us at Slate. Thank you very much for all the hard work and for helping us just see through the fog to what feels like is starting to be a really interesting and notable pattern of court resistance. Thanks, Dalia and Mark and I are loosening our ties and lighting up our smokeless cigars for today's episode of Amicus plus, we're going to talk through the arguments in Mahmood v. Taylor, argued at the Supreme Court Court this past week and which revealed Justice Samuel Alito's shortcomings in textual interpretation of children's fiction. We're also going to discuss the efforts from Democratic lawmakers and legions of law students who are trying to help Big Law to find its backbone. You can subscribe to Slate plus directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify, or you can visit slate.comamicus+ to get access wherever you listen. That episode is available for you to listen to right now. We'll see you there. And one more thing before we go. Remember that part of my conversation with Sky Paraman where she was talking about silos and how sometimes they kind of blind us to the bigger picture? Or in fact, how many of the Trump administration's actions really reach baby beyond and between silos? Well, this week's episode of what Next TBD looks at that issue from the point of view of our data, yours and mine, and how Doge is gathering it, breaking down the silos to share our private data across departments and what it means for our rights and our privacy. Highly recommend listening. That episode is called the Immigration Data Dragnet. How Doge is Helping create a more efficient surveillance state. Check it out wherever you get your podcasts. And that is all for this episode. Thank you so much for listening. Thank you so much for your letters and your questions and your feedback. You can always keep in touch@amicus slate.com or you can find [e-mail] Amicus Podcast. Sara Burningham is Amicus's senior producer. Our producer is Patrick Fort. Hilary Fry is Slate's editor in chief, Susan Matthews is executive editor, and Ben Richmond is our senior director of operations. We will be back with another episode of Amicus next week.

[Leon Nayfak]

I'm Leon Nayfak and I'm the host of Slow Burn. Watergate. Before I started working on this show, everything I knew about Watergate came from the movie all the President's Men. Do you remember how it ends? Woodward and Bernstein are sitting at their typewriters, clacking away. And then there's this rapid montage of newspaper stories about campaign aides and White House officials getting getting convicted of crimes. About audio tapes coming out that prove Nixon's involvement in the coverup. The last story we see is Nixon resigns. It takes a little over a minute in a movie. In real life, it took about two years.

[Dahlia Lithwick]

Five men were arrested early Saturday while trying to install eavesdropping equipment. It's known as the Watergate Incident.

[Leon Nayfak]

What was it like to experience those two years in real time? What were people thinking and feeling as the break in at Democratic Party headquarters went from a weird little caper to a constitutional crisis that brought down the President? The downfall of Richard Nixon was stranger, wilder, and more exciting than you can imagine. Over the course of eight episodes, this show is going to capture what it was like to live through the greatest political scandal of the 20th century. With today's headlines once again full of corruption, collusion and dirty tricks, it's time for another look at the gate that started it all. Subscribe to Slow Burn now, wherever you get your podcasts.

[Josh Levine]

Hi, I'm Josh Levine. My podcast, the Queen, tells the story of Linda Taylor. She was a con artist, a kidnapper, and maybe even a murderer. She was also given the title the Welfare Queen, and her story was used by Ronald Reagan to justify slashing aid to the poor. Now it's time to hear her real story. Over the course of four episodes, you'll find out what was done to Linda Taylor, what she did to others, and what was done in her name.

[Sky Perriman]

The great lesson of this for me is that people will come to their own conclusions based on what their prejudices are.

[Josh Levine]

Subscribe to the Queen on Apple podcasts or wherever you're listening right now.