12 Comments
User's avatar
Dax Jac's avatar

I don’t see this going anywhere, the DOJ will attempt to stall as always!! It is nice to see judges from both sides understanding what Trump and his administration are doing is just flat out criminal, discriminatory and unconstitutional !!

Expand full comment
Lance Khrome's avatar

Meanwhile, to provide a "distraction", Hegseth has ordered massive mobilization throughout US bases in the ME, which looks for all the world as an impending air attack upon Iranian nuclear enrichment installations, in concert with tRump's comrade-in-felonies Bibi...look out!

Expand full comment
Ann Higgins's avatar

Can he do this without congressional approval? (Brit here and I’m not entirely au fait with all your constitutional rules).

Expand full comment
Bad Bunny's avatar

This would likely be in the nature of a "surgical strike" rather than a buy-in to a protracted conflict. US law has historically required that Congress issue a declaration of war in the latter circumstance, but in recent decades this has been honored only in the breach. For limited operations, it's advisable for the commander in chief to liaise with Congress, but it's not required.

Expand full comment
Ann Higgins's avatar

Thanks Bad Bunny that’s very helpful. I wonder where the line between the two falls though and whether Trump would take any notice of it if Congress tried to invoke it.

Expand full comment
Sotek's avatar

If Congress actually tries to invoke it - meaning the Republicans in Congress - Trump would take notice, because at that point he'd be fighting both branches and that is a fight he would lose. (And if he ever loses half the congressional Republicans in general as opposed to on some specific issue, he gets impeached. there are so many things he can be reasonably impeached on and whatever he would be losing Republicans over would probably also be itself impeachable)

The problem is that Speaker Johnson has exactly zero interest in exercising power in any way except as Trump's rubberstamp, and the Republicans are, as a whole, lined up behind the idea of Dictator Supremo Trump.

Expand full comment
Bad Bunny's avatar

"These 'settlements' are apparently not in writing or enforceable by the law firms, so the President can change his mind at any time and impose an executive order if the firms stray too far from the President’s wishes—thus maintaining the coercive effect of the Policy even against 'settling' law firms.

This is analogous to the EOs Trump issued against various universities, which are likewise open-ended and intended to have the identical chilling and disequilibrating effect.

Expand full comment
Michael's avatar

The lower courts judiciary have been the only reliable barrier to impeding the aberrant actions of the executive cince inauguration day, in the absence of any congressional check. I salute the ABA's skillfully written pleading and the proper actions of the two Massachusetts judges. Thank you, Chris, for your helpful and always informative reporting.

Expand full comment
Percy's avatar

Great tripleheader.

Expand full comment
Bad Bunny's avatar

Despite the public impression of the ABA as the umbrella organization representing the legal industry, it's a voluntary association and they may have an uphill battle to prove to the court's satisfaction that they have standing.

Expand full comment
Jordan Thayer's avatar

Big standing problem. But who cares, because trump is bad.

Expand full comment
Sotek's avatar

No they don't, being a voluntary association doesn't harm them even a little bit under the Hunt test, which is the relevant test here - the prongs of the test are "(a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization’s purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit."

All three prongs are easy here. In fact, being voluntary helps with the second prog - if it was mandatory that would arguably harm its ability to say that the rule of law as distinct from the good of individual lawyers is germane to its purpose.

Expand full comment