Today’s entry is our weekly slightly lighter fare—something to offer a sliver of relief amid the unyielding heaviness of the Trump Administration's assault on constitutional norms. So, scroll down to catch the winner of our latest Talking Five contest, along with a brand-new challenge where you can throw your own (five words or fewer) response into the ring for a chance to win a Talking Feds mug.
That said, today’s dispatch will be short but not without substance. I wanted to share my thoughts on the administration’s escalating standoff with Judge Jeb Boasberg, including the highly unusual statement that Chief Justice Roberts issued in response to Trump’s madman attack on Boasberg.
Thank you to everyone who threw their hats into the ring for our Caption This contest two weeks ago!
Once again, we were treated to a brilliant array of entries—some darkly comic, others eerily prophetic, and more than a few that jolted us back to reality.
When it came to selecting a winner, we sought a caption that was both poignant and unmistakably realistic. And The Hartman Family delivered with:
“I answered this ridiculous email.”
A hard truth wrapped in humor.
Congratulations! A member of our team will be in touch shortly to send you your highly coveted Talking Feds mug.
And it’s time for another round of our fan-favorite Five Words or Fewer challenge!
Last week, for a few surreal hours, the White House lawn doubled as a Tesla showroom. What's the next privatization of the White House lawn that we can expect?
We posed that exact question to Ali Vitali, Josh Marshall, and Charlie Sykes—catch their takes at the 48:50 mark in our latest roundtable episode, ClusterChuck” (Link here.)
Now it’s your turn. Drop your best five-words-or-fewer answer here for a chance to claim the highly sought-after Talking Feds mug. Let’s see what you’ve got!
More on the possible standoff in the district court over the Aliens Enemies Act
How important was Chief Justice Roberts' statement pushing back on Trump's intemperate and authoritarian comments about Judge Jeb Boasberg? Pretty damn important. The key feature is that he did it not in the context of a case, but just entered the fray, which is extremely unusual.
It’s also certain that he’s reflecting the views of at least many of the justices, as opposed to just his own. He wouldn’t be doing this solely in his own voice. While Trump's impeachment suggestion is ridiculously over-the-top and demagogic, it fits into the broader pattern of lawless and bellicose statements from figures like Miller, Holman, and the entire crowd. In that sense, Roberts’ intervention is a positive sign that the Supreme Court will not permit Trump to simply destroy the rule of law.
As I mention below, Trump has gone berserk over a judge who is extremely well-respected by the entire judiciary. Anyone with any knowledge knows that his diatribe is absolutely hallucinatory.
That doesn't mean, of course, that Trump won't do it anyway—creating the ultimate constitutional crisis. However, the second-largest concern is that the Supreme Court might effectively acquiesce to the erosion of judicial review and checks and balances. Roberts’ statement is a positive sign, but just a sign, especially considering the overall makeup of the court. Again, I can’t emphasize enough how unusual this is, and therefore how alarming Trump’s statements are.
In the meantime, the administration’s face-off with Judge Jeb Boasberg is getting really ugly. The DOJ’s basic argument at yesterday's hearing was that they didn’t violate Boasberg’s order, but they refused to explain why, citing national security. Boasberg, who is extremely respected on both sides of the aisle, has ordered them to produce the information he needs to determine if they violated his order. He’s obviously not letting this go, and if he determines that they did, he is poised to lower the boom. On the other hand, the administration might assert some form of immunity from any review on his part at all. We would then be facing some form—what form would depend on their argument—of a constitutional crisis, and a showdown between the executive and the judiciary.
A famous maxim from the Court is that “the Constitution is not a suicide pact.” The statement from Roberts suggests he and at least several other Justices are keeping that point in mind as the disputes involving Trump’s extreme assertion of executive power work their way up to the High Court.
So much more to come in the coming week, but I wanted to quickly note three arguments the administration has raised—among a swirling collection of inconsistent claims—that are totally bogus. If they push back on any of these grounds tomorrow, it's likely to inflame the judge and signal that they are prepared for a major standoff.
The argument that a "single District Court judge" can't bind the administration in matters of national security. The administration has hinted at this in court and its spokespeople like Tom Homan and Stephen Miller have been aggressive about it in public statements. But it’s tantamount to an exception to the principle of judicial review. There's no provision in the law for ignoring a single district court judge (except in instances where Congress has provided special procedures); rather, if parties, including the government, object to a ruling, the law provides for remedies on appeal. The whole federal court system is there for a reason, and there is no basis for starting out at the second rung.
The argument that if the planes were in international airspace, they were no longer subject to Boasberg’s jurisdiction. There’s strong suggestion that that was the basis that the attorneys used on Saturday night to disregard his orders. But the argument is also nonsense. Boasberg’s orders are binding on executive branch officials. It doesn't matter where those officials are.
The argument that national security precludes letting Boasberg review the basis for the administration’s position that they complied with his order. More gibberish. District court judges routinely review national security information, outside the public eye, in order to decide if the government has a good basis for withholding it. Boasberg in particular served a term on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, where it occurred in virtually every case. The Department’s submission today grudgingly acknowledges thise point.
It's nonetheless clear that the administration is looking to (1) grossly expand Trump’s use of executive power in national security settings and (2) prevent the judiciary from reviewing these assertions of authority. That’s particularly problematic given Trump’s indifference to the truth. He has claimed national security as the reason for blackballing certain law firms. But that's a lie—and if the courts allow him to get away with it on the theory that he can't be second-guessed, it's a giant step toward authoritarian rule on the Hungary model.
At best, we are on the precipice of the worst constitutional crisis in U.S. history. The president, having brought Congress completely under his heel, is now looking to subjugate the judicial branch and govern unchecked—at least anytime he incants the words “national security.” But the clearly alarmed statement from the Chief Justice is a very welcome sign that Trump may have to go all in on disobeying judicial order.
We need to push back with everything we’ve got. And it starts by calling out the lies, which are always there.
Talk to you later.
“Roberts’ intervention is a positive sign that the Supreme Court will not permit Trump to simply destroy the rule of law.” I’ll believe it when I see it. Hope you’re right.
We need to remember that District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk (Northern District Texas) issued a ruling that mifepristone was to be removed from all usage for abortions. That was supposed to cover the entire country, and these republican jerks had no - ZERO - problem with that order.