GD POLITICS — "The Cases That Could Rein In Trump"
Host: Galen Druke
Guest: Jessica Roth, Professor of Law at Cardozo
Date: September 4, 2025
Episode Overview
This episode dives into the growing number of legal cases challenging President Trump's actions and the boundaries of presidential authority. With references to mounting headlines and over 390 legal challenges tracked by Just Security, Galen Druke and guest legal expert Jessica Roth dissect several headline cases — from National Guard deployments to the firing of independent agency officials — illustrating how the courts are confronting or deferring to executive overreach. The conversation balances legal nuance with concern about institutional checks and balances, examining what these cases mean for American democracy.
Key Discussion Points & Insights
1. Deploying the National Guard Against State Wishes
- Case Background: Trump ordered National Guard troops deployed to California against Governor Newsom’s wishes.
- Legal Ruling: A federal judge ruled this violated the Posse Comitatus Act, a statute prohibiting federal military engagement in domestic law enforcement ([03:08]).
- Court's Action: The use of those forces for policing was enjoined but left open the possibility of other roles (e.g., protecting federal buildings) ([03:08]).
- Next Steps: Anticipated appeals to higher courts, possibly the Supreme Court ([03:38]).
- Broader Implications: Future legal challenges in other states will hinge on the authorities invoked and the troops' activities ([04:08]).
- Legal Complexity:
- Standing and Authority: The question of who (governor or private party) has the legal standing to challenge presidential action, and whether the courts will decide cases on narrow or technical grounds ([05:11]).
- Notable Quote:
“It could be that we get a very unsatisfying answer about the limits of the president’s authority.”
— Jessica Roth, [06:26]
2. Firing of Fed Governor Lisa Cook & Independent Agency Heads
- Case Background: Trump attempted to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook for alleged misrepresentation on a mortgage application ([06:35]).
- Constitutional Issues: Trump claims unfettered Article 2 authority to fire executive appointees at will, even those at independent or quasi-independent agencies ([07:30]).
- Statutory Protections: Many agency heads are protected by "for cause" requirements. The legal debate centers on whether Congress’s limits are constitutional, and what constitutes "cause" ([08:11]).
- Fed Distinction:
- The Supreme Court suggested the Fed is “different” and more protected than other agencies—an unusual carve-out designed to keep the Federal Reserve more independent ([09:56]).
- Notable Quote:
“The Fed was in some way sort of differently situated in our governmental structure...its history and functions distinguishable enough that the for-cause requirement might have more bite.”
— Jessica Roth, [10:31]
- Trend in Supreme Court:
- Apart from the Fed, the Supreme Court is leaning toward supporting presidential at-will firing powers, referencing the shadow docket and recent cases ([11:16]).
- The D.C. Circuit Court just ruled Trump’s firing of an FTC commissioner unlawful for lack of cause, affirming that the precedent (Humphrey's Executor) protecting such officials is still binding unless the Supreme Court overturns it ([12:20]).
- Notable Quote:
“The court is aligning with the President in his claim that he can fire more of these people essentially at will, notwithstanding a cause requirement.”
— Jessica Roth, [11:31]
3. Appointments Within the Department of Justice
- Key Case: Trump’s personal attorney, Alina Haba, appointed as U.S. Attorney for New Jersey over Senate objections ([13:05]).
- Procedural Workarounds: Trump administration used interim authorities, complex statutory maneuvers, and direct DOJ appointments to keep Haba in office after both the Senate and federal judges resisted her installation ([13:05]–[15:45]).
- Legal Challenge/Impact: District court ruled Haba is not lawfully in the position, causing a practical standstill for DOJ cases in New Jersey as appeals proceed ([15:55]).
- What's at Stake:
“She’s shown herself to be willing to go after the President’s enemies, sort of to do his bidding.”
— Jessica Roth, [16:29]
Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments
-
On Trump’s Vision of Executive Power:
“Trump is asserting essentially an unfettered right directly under Article 2 of the Constitution to fire people for any reason or no reason at all.”
— Jessica Roth, [07:35] -
On Legal Uncertainty:
“For a lot of the cases we’re going to get to today, the answer to ‘How will the Supreme Court rule?’ is ‘We don’t know, but there’s a spectrum.’”
— Galen Druke, [04:46] -
On Weaponization of DOJ Appointments:
“It’s a whole bunch of different maneuvers, arguably pursuant to various statutory authorities…so there’s a whole host of reasons why she’s not lawfully serving in the position…judges have essentially just been postponing cases.”
— Jessica Roth, [15:09]
Major Timestamps
- 00:39–02:28 — Introduction, overview of Trump’s legal challenges and executive actions
- 02:28–06:35 — National Guard deployment and the Posse Comitatus Act
- 06:35–12:45 — Attempts to fire independent agency staff, with focus on the Fed and Article 2 authority
- 12:45–16:15 — DOJ appointments and the Alina Haba case in New Jersey
- 16:15–16:35 — Motives behind controversial DOJ appointments
Episode Tone
- Curious and rigorous: The discussion is deeply analytical yet accessible, with Galen pressing for clarity on legal nuances and Roth providing expert breakdowns, often noting the courts’ unpredictability.
- Concerned yet balanced: Both speakers underscore the seriousness of the issues, but leave room for institutional uncertainty and the limits of court intervention.
- Wry & honest: Occasional dry humor and exasperation underline the complexity — and at times absurdity — of the legal and constitutional maneuverings under scrutiny.
This summary provides an in-depth guide to the episode, capturing the core cases, legal theories, and institutional stakes—essential for anyone tracking how American democracy is being negotiated in the courts during Trump’s second term.