Transcript
A (0:00)
Hi, I'm Juliette from New York Times Games, and I'm here talking to fans about our games. You play New York Times Games? Yes, every day. There's this little tab down here called Friends, so you can add your friend. That feels new to me. It is. It's nice to have the social aspect. Oh, my God. And you have all the Times. That's crazy, right? You can look at Spelling Bee, wordle Connections. Oh, my God.
B (0:21)
Amazing. Love that I have to get the app.
A (0:23)
New York Times Games subscribers get full access to all our games and features. Subscribe now@nytimes.com games for a special offer from the New York Times. It's the Headlines. I'm Tracy Mumford. Today's Tuesday, October 21st. Here's what we're covering. A federal appeals court has cleared the way for the Trump administration to deploy National Guard troops in Portland, Oregon, over the objections of the state's governor. Months of protests outside an ICE facility there led President Trump to call the city war ravaged, saying it needed to be protected from domestic terrorists. That dramatic language, however, did not match law enforcement agencies own assessment of the protests, which they called low energy. A lower court judge blocked the guard deployment in Portland earlier this month, calling Trump's portrayal of the city simply untethered to the facts. But in the latest ruling, appeals court judges cited a number of instances where demonstrators had thrown rocks and sticks, attempted to set fires at the ice building, or shot paintballs at officers. One judge wrote that that was enough to support the deployment decision, quote, even if the president may exaggerate the extent of the problem on social media, lawyers for the state have already pushed for an appeal, so the legal wrangling is likely to continue. Meanwhile, the fight over whether the president can unilaterally send troops into US Cities is also still playing out in Illinois. Deployments there are currently blocked, but the Trump administration has now asked the Supreme Court to weigh in an emergency basis. Just nine months into Trump's term, the administration has made about as many emergency appeals to the Supreme Court as the Biden administration made in four years. And the court has sided with the Trump administration nearly every single time. The rulings, which come from what's sometimes called the shadow docket, can be unsigned with no explanation for the Supreme Court's decision. And while the orders are technically temporary, they've allowed Trump to deport tens of thousands of people, slash spending, and fire federal workers again, often with little or no explanation. For many lower court judges, that's been confusing and frustrating.
B (2:49)
We started to wonder, well, can we get a sense of just how widespread these frustrations are. And so we decided to just start reaching out to judges, as many as we could, one by one.
