DOGE Is Defying Court Orders. Will the Supreme Court Care?
Added 2025-03-03 09:45:48 +0000 UTCOA1132 - We resume our regularly scheduled rapid response to law in the news, starting with some good news (really) from the Supreme Court! Then: some-not-so-good news from the Supreme Court on the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle the US Agency for International Development. Why did a federal judge need to issue an order confirming that he really meant it when he told the new administration to resume paying out the funds that Congress intended, and why does John Roberts seem to be taking this nonsense seriously? Matt then provides some context for a recent announcement regarding the Trump administration’s intention to require all undocumented people to register with DHS before dropping a footnote with recent developments in the unbelievable story of the most (allegedly) felonious Supreme Court litigator in modern US history.
Glossip v. Oklahoma (Feb. 25, 2025)
Complete docket for Global Health Council v. Trump
Letter to the editor of the New York Times from NY Congressional representative Emmanuel Celler opposing alien registration (May 25, 1925)
Indictment in U.S. v. Goldstein(1/16/25)
Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!
Comments
2:00 Is it possible to have an average amount of cosm?
Jason Valasek
2025-03-05 16:22:01 +0000 UTCMatt, what can an attorney say to their clients other than *just* advising them to follow the law when they ask what to do, if following the law might not bein the client's best interest? While I assume the lawyer isn't really allowed to employ stuff like winks, noting that it's Opposite Day, etc., can they still at least say what they think will happen if the client does vs doesn't follow the law, and how likely they think those outcomes are? Or are lawyers kinda prohibited from even exploring the lawbreaking discussion entirely, or to the extent that it could sound preferable?
Graydon Armstrong
2025-03-04 03:30:25 +0000 UTCMatt, I have a practical question on the USAID lawsuit / violation of TRO. It seems to me like contempt of court is warranted, but who exactly would you hold in contempt and what consequences could the court impose? The lawsuit lists Trump, Rubio, Vought and another State Dept lackey named Marocco as defendants, as well as the USAID, OMB and State Dept organizations. I think we know they won’t hold Trump in contempt, and Rubio also seems unlikely, but maybe the other two could face consequences? Could they hold the USAID or State Dept in contempt? If so, what consequences could they impose on those orgs? This may all be moot as it moves on to SCOTUS, but I’m just curious what tools the federal courts actually possess to enforce the laws that Congress passed as directed toward the executive branch. Obviously Congress could also use its oversight powers, but that clearly isn’t going to happen right now.
Colbin Erdahl
2025-03-03 19:25:01 +0000 UTCI was just trying to add context for people on this thread - you have very limited time on the show to cover these things and it’s great that you had a chance to mention it at all! And it doesn’t really change the underlying conclusion
Alvin Bragg should indict Eric Adams
2025-03-03 18:56:37 +0000 UTCThey are a fun podcast I think you'll enjoy. Usually lower stakes stuff you can laugh at without also crying.
Christopher Bosch
2025-03-03 18:55:49 +0000 UTCGood point, i should have gone more granular on that
Matt Cameron
2025-03-03 18:54:25 +0000 UTCI've never listened to them but will have to check that out. This was of course just a footnote to give the basics of the story--but for sure, after reading through the indictment and the other recent filings on the docket there was so much more i wanted to talk about but couldn't have fit into 10 mins. Thinking he will probably get his own episode once the trial gets going
Matt Cameron
2025-03-03 18:53:52 +0000 UTCJust a quick note on Glossip - it looks like Barrett only joined the majority in finding that federal courts had jurisdiction over Glossip’s claims. She joined the dissent on most of the merits portions, but also writes separately to say that she believes the court should have remanded for further fact finding rather than granting a new trial. So it’s more a 5-3 win for Glossip rather than 6-2, but either way it’s a win.
Alvin Bragg should indict Eric Adams
2025-03-03 16:51:09 +0000 UTCAh a great plug for the other podcast, they really go into the details there.
Ryan
2025-03-03 16:35:43 +0000 UTCYou know there’s an irony to the fact the right has spent almost 40 years taking over the Supreme Court only to turn around and try to remove all its power
General Contact Unit Problem Child
2025-03-03 14:34:24 +0000 UTCThe SCOTUSBLOG guy wrote the memo because he was looking for investors to back him in some of his poker games. The story is significantly wilder than Matt let on. Listen to the last few episodes of Lawyers Behaving Badly for more dirt.
Christopher Bosch
2025-03-03 14:34:01 +0000 UTC
