Executive Functions Chat – Details, episodes & analysis

The Supreme Court issued a consequential decision yesterday staying two district court rulings that had blocked President Trump from firing board members of executive agencies. We discuss the decision, what it means for Humphrey’s Executor, and other potential short- and long-term consequences.

We discuss the oral argument in the birthright citizenship case and dive into Jack’s post analyzing Solicitor General Sauer’s concessions that the Supreme Court has the authority to issue “binding precedent nationwide.”

Consider becoming a free or paid subscriber to Executive Functions.

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.

We discuss Jack’s post on the administration’s habeas trial balloons, the legal issues and possible strategic aims underlying the comments, and how it all fits into the administration’s larger program of attack on the courts.

Consider becoming a free or paid subscriber to Executive Functions.

We discuss reports of extensive corrupt conduct in the administration, the innovations that facilitated the corruption, the reasons for the muted public reaction, what might generate a stronger reaction, reform possibilities, and more.

Consider becoming a free or paid subscriber to Executive Functions.

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.