Main Justice

Last week, Judge James Boasberg checked in the Justice Department by quashing two subpoenas against Federal Reserve Board Chair Jerome Powell, intended to pressure him into "voting for lower interest rates or resigning.” Finding “essentially zero evidence” of criminal behavior, Mary and Andrew explain how these subpoenas were issued as retribution and retaliation against Powell, as Boasberg cited over 100 statements that the president and his deputies made attacking him. Next, the co-hosts dig into the disciplinary proceedings against President Trump’s pardon attorney Ed Martin, who, while serving as DC’s interim U.S. Attorney, pressured Georgetown Law School to change its curriculum. Last on the agenda, Mary and Andrew highlight the case that AI firm Anthropic filed against the Defense Department over being essentially blacklisted. The case is centered around the Pentagon labeling the AI firm a “supply chain risk” after they asked the Pentagon not to use their “Claude” AI technology to do two things: “deploy lethal autonomous warfare without human oversight” and use it for “mass surveillance of Americans.”

Further reading: 

Here is the complaint Anthropic filed against the government: Complaint For Declaratory And Injunctive Relief

Here once again is the Federal Register if you’d like to enter public comment: Review of State Bar Complaints and Allegations Against Department of Justice Attorneys

Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows.

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Today's episode begins with a breakdown of the Justice Department’s about-face on four cases brought after Trump targeted several law firms through executive action. As Mary and Andrew discussed last week – they initially dropped their appeal of the decisions against sanctioning these firms, only to reverse course the next day, topped off with a new court filing Friday appealing the rulings. Next, the co-hosts review a pair of decisions: one out of Minnesota's district court concerning the state’s immigration surge, which determined the stopping and subsequent arrests of the case’s plaintiffs was a result of racial profiling. The second decision comes from U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, who ruled Kari Lake’s oversight of Voice of America unlawful and illegitimate. Last up, Mary and Andrew detail Attorney General Pam’s Bondi’s proposed rule that would put any state complaint against a justice department lawyer on hold while the DOJ reviews it, essentially giving the department the power to hold these indefinitely if they so choose.

Further reading:

Here is Mary’s recent piece on MS Now detailing the DOJ’s shift on appealing several law firm decisions: What’s exposed by the Justice Department’s reversal on Trump’s campaign against law firms. Every lawyer knows that the federal court rulings were correct and that the president's executive orders are legally indefensible.

Here is the Federal Resister: Review of State Bar Complaints and Allegations Against Department of Justice Attorneys

Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows.

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Initial shock has given way to grave concerns as the US and Israel’s joint attack on Iran continue, stepping both countries into a war without a clear goal, end date or exit strategy. To help explain where congressional powers lie and the limits of executive authority, Mary and Andrew call upon Tess Bridgeman, international law expert and Co-Editor-in-Chief of "Just Security”. Tess stakes out the scope of the 1973 War Powers Resolution, and why Congress is meant to be the body that decides if, and when the US commits to armed conflict with another nation state. Then, Mary and Andrew turn focus to a few immigration updates, as more judges chastise the government for continually violating court orders, and a Columbia student is detained by ICE under false pretenses. Last up, the co-hosts turn to the decision in the case involving whether a journalist’s devices seized while executing a search warrant could be searched. Plus: the Trump administration’s decision to stand down on defending Trump’s sanctions against law firms— only to do a seeming about face the next day.

Further reading:

Here is the piece Tess Bridgeman co-wrote on "Just Security": Top Questions the Trump Administration Needs to Answer on War with Iran

Here is the opinion Andrew and Mary were referring to out of the Southern District of West Virginia

You can pre-order Andrew’s book, out May 19th, here: Liar’s Kingdom: How to Stop Trump’s Deceit and Save America

Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows.

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Last week, the Supreme Court struck down President Trump's expansive tariffs, ruling that they exceeded the authority given to him by Congress. The 6-3 decision saw conservative Justices Gorsuch, Coney Barrett, and Chief Justice Roberts align with the court’s three liberal justices, though as Mary and Andrew explain, through different pathways: the conservative justices using the “major questions doctrine” as their guiding principle, while the liberal justices arrived at the same result through statutory interpretation and good ‘ole “common sense.” The co-hosts spend most of this episode walking through key parts of the ruling, noting Justice Gorsuch’s opinion that the legislative process ought to reflect the will of elected representatives, “not just that of one faction or man.” Then, Mary and Andrew turn to a significant ruling against ICE in West Virginia, where a federal judge admonished agents for wearing masks and using unmarked cars, a presence akin to a “secret police force." And last up, a scathing review of Judge Eileen Cannon’s decision not to release Jack Smith’s report in the classified documents case.

Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows.

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Last week, a grand jury refused to indict six Democratic lawmakers over a video they made addressing service members’ duty to refuse illegal orders. Mary and Andrew hold little back as they discuss the government’s attempt to chill free speech and persecute political foes. In an adjacent case, they review Judge Richard Leon’s decision to block Secretary Pete Hegseth from demoting Senator Mark Kelly over the video, saying it “trampled on Senator Kelly's First Amendment freedoms.” The co-hosts then dig into the unsealed Fulton County affidavit and what it shows about the basis of the administration's 2020 election fraud claims, before concluding with a couple due process updates: Judge Boasberg’s decision ordering the Trump administration to facilitate the return of some Venezuelan migrants unlawfully deported, and Judge Tim Kelly’s decision in a case about death row prisoners being sent to a “Supermax” prison on the government’s orders without due process, after Biden granted them clemency from the death penalty before leaving office.
Further reading:
Read Judge Richard J. Leon’s Memorandum Opinion on Mark Kelly v. Pete Hegseth HERE
 

Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows.

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.