We discuss an op-ed Jack published in the New York Times this morning in which he argued that much of the aggressive action Trump 2.0 is taking stems from similar, but less extreme, actions in prior presidencies. He contended that the Supreme Court and Congress have some capacity to limit the dangers of “presidencies run amok,” but that a constitutional amendment might be necessary to impose sufficient constraints.

We discuss the ongoing conflict between the Trump administration and Harvard in light of the Trump Organization’s firing today of ethics adviser William Burck.

Consider becoming a free or paid subscriber to Executive Functions.

We discuss the Supreme Court’s Saturday Alien Enemies Act ruling, a district court ruling in a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau case, and whether the administration is starting to experience negative consequences from its attacks on courts.

* See Jack’s piece from yesterday assessing, among other things, what the Supreme Court’s order reveals about the Solicitor General’s Office in Trump 2.0.

Consider becoming a free or paid subscriber to Executive Functions.

We discuss Judge Wilkinson’s opinion denying the government’s stay motion in the Abrego Garcia case, Judge Boasberg’s opinion finding probable cause that government defendants’ conduct in the Alien Enemies Act case constituted contempt of the court, and where the administration might go from here.

Consider becoming a free or paid subscriber to Executive Functions.

We discuss the Supreme Court’s emergency rulings, and one of us (Jack) argues that the Court is not capitulating to the Trump administration (see Jack’s piece making this argument posted this morning). We also discuss the administration’s still-escalating attack against law firms.

Consider becoming a free or paid subscriber to Executive Functions.

We discuss the Supreme Court’s ruling last night in the Alien Enemies Act deportation case, the Abrego Garcia case, and the difficulty of lawyering on behalf of the government with incomplete information.

It’s been a busy last couple of days in the Trump administration’s ongoing attack against law firms. We discuss the complaints filed by Jenner & Block and WilmerHale against the Trump administration contesting the executive orders targeting the firms, Skadden’s deal with the administration, and what it all means for the broader big law landscape.

Following the Jenner & Block order, we discuss what President Trump’s directives targeting law firms collectively reveal about the nature of this effort and the extent to which law firms have a responsibility to resist it.

We discuss Paul Weiss’s agreement with President Trump and the condemnation of universal injunctions from the administration and its allies.

We discuss President Trump’s comments about Judge Boasberg, the administration’s broad strategy in court, the U.S. Institute of Peace story, and the current weakness of the checks that generally constrain executive power.