Trump vs. the Supremes The largest stress test yet of the U.S. Constitution Robert Reich May 17 Friends, The showdown is nearly upon us. Yesterday the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump regime cannot deport a group of Venezuelans while the matter is being litigated in the courts. The regime can’t merely allege that they’re members of a violent gang; it must give them sufficient time to challenge their deportations. And it can’t merely assume that the eighteenth-century Alien Enemies Act gives it authority. Both the facts of these cases and the law have to be hashed out in lower courts. The justices called the detainees’ interests “particularly weighty” because of the risk of removal to a notorious prison in El Salvador where the migrants could face indefinite detention. Score a big one for the rule of law. Of course, Justice Samuel Alito dissented, joined by Clarence Thomas. The two have moved so far into the dense fog of irrational rightwing legal blather that they have lost all credibility. The big news is that the three Trump appointees — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — joined the Chief Justice and the three Democratic appointees to set a limit on Trump. I call this a showdown because Trump cannot abide limits. He reacted in fury to the ruling: “THE SUPREME COURT WON’T ALLOW US TO GET CRIMINALS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!” he wrote on social media, and in a subsequent post said, “The Supreme Court of the United States is not allowing me to do what I was elected to do.” And he called it “a bad and dangerous day for America.” Trump’s outrage has three unfortunate consequences. It establishes that Trump and the nation’s highest court are on a collision course on what Trump considers a central goal of his regime — what he “was elected to do.” It also increases the possibility that Trump will do what JD Vance and others in the White House have urged him to do all along — announce that he will not be bound by the Court’s rulings. This would be momentous. If enough Americans (and their constituents) are horrified by this — as we should be — it could spell the end of Trump. Openly defying a Supreme Court decision is surely enough to warrant an impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate. The third consequence of Trump’s rage is to expose the nine justices — and the judiciary in general — to even more harassment, including death threats. Online threats toward judge and justices are growing. Last Sunday, Trump criticized what he called “a radicalized and incompetent Court System,” which he said was standing in the way of his mass deportation agenda. Paul Redmond Michel, a former federal appeals court judge appointed by Ronald Reagan, said the increasing threats to judges highlighted an urgent need for Trump, Attorney General Bondi and other administration officials, to make clear that they will follow court orders, regardless of the outcome, and prioritize judges’ safety. “We know from the January 6, 2021, rioters that there are people out there who are perfectly prepared to be extremely violent and damaging and threatening,” said Michel. “Judges have to feel confident enough in being protected that they can make decisions without looking over their shoulders and worrying about whether the decision, if it’s unpleasing to the administration, might cause them some kind of harm.” This week, U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), ranking member of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, asked Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel to investigate the increasing number of threats to federal judges, which “threaten not only judges and their families, but also judicial independence and the rule of law,” Durbin wrote. But there’s no question what’s fueling the threats — as Trump’s outburst against the Supreme Court’s ruling yesterday shows. The Trump regime is not content to merely castigate judges and justices. It is now arresting judges. On Tuesday, it indicted Judge Hannah C. Dugan of the Milwaukee County Circuit Court on charges of obstructing federal agents from arresting a suspected undocumented immigrant who was appearing in her courtroom. In fact, Dugan was simply trying to maintain the legal sanctity of that courtroom. Attorney General Pam Bondi says the regime will target judges who oppose the president's growing immigration crackdown: "What has happened to our judiciary is beyond me. The [judges] are deranged is all I can think of. I think some of these judges think that they are beyond and above the law. They are not, and we are sending a very strong message today ... if you are harboring a fugitive… we will come after you and we will prosecute you. We will find you." Judges and justices cannot be “beyond and above the law” because they are the final arbiters of the law. They have also become the last firewall against a Trump dictatorship — which presumably is why the regime is now taking them on. Yesterday’s decision by the Supreme Court needs to be understood in this larger context. The coming showdown between Trump and the Supreme Court will be the largest stress test yet of our constitutional system.

 

Watch now

Legal AF on Trump's Habeas Corpus Threat and More (Ad-Free)

Watch Legal AF ad-free exclusively on Meidas+

Legal AF, Ben Meiselas, and MeidasTouch Network May 11

The latest episode of Legal AF is now available ad-free exclusively for Meidas+ Substack subscribers. To support ad-free episodes like this, please consider joining as a paid subscriber today!

Meidas+ is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Ben Meiselas and Michael Popok head the top-rated Legal AF podcast, and tonight they address Trump’s declaration of war against the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and the writ of habeas corpus — and just how close we are to Trump declaring martial law. They also examine the outsized role of Trump’s senior advisor Stephen Miller, who is not a lawyer but plays one in the White House; the latest moves by federal courts to protect democracy in a series of losses for Trump this week; the U.S. Supreme Court pushing back against Trump; and a preview of the final oral argument of the term on birthright citizenship and nationwide injunctions — all at the intersection of law and politics.

Remember to add the Legal AF podcast wherever you listen to podcasts, like Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

Legal AF Full Episode - 5/10/2025 Legal AF by MeidasTouch 1:18:13

A guest post by Legal AF Breaking news at the intersection of law & politics with sharp & witty commentary curated by Legal AF x MeidasTouch’s co-founder, Michael Popok.

What Is “Habeas Corpus” – and Why Do They Want To Suspend It?

 

Sen. Adam Schiff

329K subscribers

The Trump Administration is openly talking about suspending the writ of habeas corpus if the courts continue to rule against them. They don't have the authority to do that – and their threats are as reckless and irresponsible as they are dangerous. Let's break it down. --- Join the conversation: → https://www.schiff.senate.gov →   / senadamschiff   →   / senadamschiff   →   / senadamschiff