If a Critical Mass of Americans Wake Up, Then the Supreme Court’s Stand Will be Indispensable to Justice
David French (N.Y. Times), The Supreme Court Can’t Save America, but Here’s What It Can Do
Mr. French writes,
Millions of Americans are desperate for a quick and effective response to Trump’s attacks on the Constitution. But the election foreclosed that possibility. The courts — even if they have the courage — lack the power to save America.
In this moment, think of the courts as a rear guard, capable of delaying constitutional collapse until the American people finally understand that the life and health of the Constitution is up to them. If they keep electing men like Trump or sycophants like those in his Congress of cowards, then we’ll lose our Republic.
But if a critical mass of Americans do wake up, then the court’s stand will be indispensable to justice and — critically — accountability. Every public official associated with Trump’s defiance of the courts (including his vice president, JD Vance) should be impeached, convicted and barred forever from holding public office.
I know that’s a fantastical vision in the present moment. In a closely divided country, impeachment and removal aren’t viable options, but supermajorities among Americans have existed before. The civil rights movement, empowered in part by the Supreme Court, attained a supermajority that changed America, and a movement to preserve the Constitution can be a supermajority again.
We can’t ask the Supreme Court to do more than it’s able to do, but it must do all that it can. The choices it will face may well be as stark as the choice between segregation and equality, or between internment and freedom.
The court’s past failures have destroyed lives and put our Republic in mortal danger. Its past courage has inspired revolutionary change. Unless Trump backs down, it will face the same choice the court faced in 1954 — yield in the face of enormous resistance or stand even when the politicians fail.
Let Us Now Praise King & Spalding
Not to Mention Quinn Emanuel
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan is a top ranked business litigation law firm. King & Spalding is a top corporate and litigation firm; one good source ranks them as #24. Here is the letter that two of their partners signed on behalf of Harvard and sent to Team Trump:
April 14, 2025
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Josh Gruenbaum
Commissioner of the Federal Acquisition Service General ServicesAdministration
Sean R. Keveney Acting General Counsel
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
Thomas E. Wheeler Acting GeneralCounsel
U.S. Department of Education
Dear Messrs. Gruenbaum, Keveney, and Wheeler:
We represent Harvard University. We are writing in response to your letter dated April 11, 2025, addressed toDr. Alan Garber, Harvard’s President, and Penny Pritzker, Senior Fellow of the Harvard Corporation.
Harvard is committed to fighting antisemitism and other forms of bigotry in its community. Antisemitism and discrimination of any kind not only are abhorrent and antithetical to Harvard’s values but also threaten its academicmission.
To that end, Harvard has made, and will continue to make, lasting and robust structural, policy, and programmatic changes to ensure that the university is a welcoming and supportive learning environment for allstudents and continues to abide in all respects with federal law across its academic programs and operations, whilefostering open inquiry in a pluralistic community free from intimidation and open to challenging orthodoxies,whatever their source.
Over the past 15 months, Harvard has undertaken substantial policy and programmatic measures. It hasmade changes to its campus use policies; adopted new accountability procedures; imposed meaningful discipline for those who violate university policies; enhanced programs designed to address bias and promote ideological diversity and civil discourse; hired staff to support these programs and support students; changed partnerships; dedicatedresources to combat hate and bias; and enhanced safety and security measures. As a result, Harvard is in a verydifferent place today from where it was a year ago. These efforts, and additional measures the university will be taking against antisemitism, not only are the right thing to do but also are critical to strengthening Harvard’scommunity as a place in which everyone can thrive.
It is unfortunate, then, that your letter disregards Harvard’s efforts and instead presents demands that, incontravention of the First Amendment, invade university freedoms long recognized by the Supreme Court. The government’s terms also circumvent Harvard’s statutory rights by requiring unsupported and disruptive remedies foralleged harms that the government has not proven through mandatory processes established by Congress and required by law. No less objectionable is the condition, first made explicit in the letter of March 31, 2025, that Harvard accede to these terms or risk the loss of billions of dollars in federal funding critical to vital research and innovation that has saved and improved lives and allowed Harvard to play a central role in making our country’sscientific, medical, and other research communities the standard-bearers for the world. These demands extend notonly to Harvard but to separately incorporated and independently operated medical and research hospitals engaging in life-saving work on behalf of their patients. The university will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights. Neither Harvard nor any other private university can allow itself to be taken over by the federal government. Accordingly, Harvard will not accept the government’s terms as an agreement in principle.
Harvard remains open to dialogue about what the university has done, and is planning to do, to improve the experience of every member of its community. But Harvard is not prepared to agree to demands that go beyond thelawful authority of this or any administration.
William A. Burck Robert K. Hur
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP King & Spalding LLP
1300 I Street NW 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Suite 900 Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005 Washington, DC 20006
He Who Would Sup with the Devil Must Have a Long Spoon
Hey, Paul Weiss! Hey, Skadden! You CANNOT Do Business with Donald Trump!
Not to mention defending Trump’s multiple constitutional violations—once the Justice Department has run through all its competent attorneys and the rest have been found in contempt of court.
Hey, Paul, Weiss! Hey, Skadden!
Y’all think y’all are gonna be able to keep on recruiting the cream of the crop from among law school graduates? To do what? To go work for Pam Bondi and be found in contempt of court? Maybe to be disbarred?
I don’t think so.
As I have said before, I was a partner of New York law firms ranked in the #20 to #30 range or thereabouts. Not as rich as Paul Weiss or Skadden, but within spitting distance.
And here’s something I learned. There are some bad people that you can do business with. And there are some bad people that you cannot do business with.
Some people you can buy, and they stay bought. Some people you can buy, but they don’t stay bought.
And Orange Mussolini is a bad person you cannot do business with.
Mainly because, in addition to being bad, he’s also crazy in the head.
Your “agreements” with Orange Mussolini are not legally enforceable, They do not even purport to be legally enforceable. And even if they did purport to be legally enforceable, they’re illusory. Their “terms” are ambiguous. And there was never a mutual manifestation of intent to abide by agreed on terms.
You have to repent of those deals.
And why is that?
Because if you don’t repent of those deals, no one is going to come work for you.
And if competent young lawyers don’t come and work for you, then your business model is going to go up in smoke.
And you can bend over and kiss your $20 million annual compensation goodbye.
A Song for Academic Freedom: Die Gedanken Sind Frei
A Letter from 876 Yale University Faculty: “We Stand Together at a Crossroads”
April 2025
Dear President McInnis, Provost Strobel, and Members of the Yale Board of Trustees:
We stand together at a crossroads. American universities are facing extraordinary attacks that threaten the bedrock principles of a democratic society, including rights of free expression, association, and academic freedom. We write as one faculty, to ask you to stand with us now.
We urge you to:
- Defend the values and ideals of higher education, and Yale’s specific mission of “improving the world through outstanding research and scholarship, education, preservation, and practice.”
- Resist and legally challenge any unlawful demands that threaten academic freedom and university self-governance.
- Commit that no department, program, or structure of shared governance will be reorganized or eliminated in response to political threats.
- Protect science and other research at Yale from funding cutoffs, by providing legal and financial support to affected scholars and research units, mobilizing extraordinary resources as necessary.
- Defend the rights to free speech on campus recognized in the Woodward Report, including by assisting community members at risk of government infringement on this right, whether through immigration action or other means.
- Work purposefully and proactively with other colleges and universities in collective defense.
We stand united, asking for your courageous leadership. We look forward to standing alongside you in this work.
Signed,
[Yale faculty of all ranks can sign this letter here.]
Columbia University Grows a Pair, Sort Of
Fear is Contagious, But So is Courage
An open letter from Claire Shipman, Acting President, Columbia University in the City of New York (emphasis added):
Dear Members of the Columbia Community:
Over the past few weeks, days, indeed over the past few hours, you have no doubt seen and heard much about Columbia and the future of higher education. This is an extraordinary and difficult time for our University. We face unprecedented pressures, with no easy answers and many uncertainties. That combination is creating significant anxiety for our community, and we must, as we navigate this moment, stay true to our core mission as an educational and research institution, and true to our community.
I’ve heard deep concern about when and whether we will get our research funding back, what form an agreement with the government would take, whether we would have to compromise our values to reach such an agreement, and what we’re doing to support our international students right now. Let me attempt to address each of these issues.
As we have shared before, the University has been engaged in what we continue to believe to be good faith discussions with the Federal Task Force to Combat Antisemitism. We have sought to address allegations of antisemitism, harassment, and discrimination on our campuses, and provide a path to restoring a partnership with the federal government that supports our vital research mission, while also protecting the University’s academic and operational integrity and independence.
Those discussions have not concluded, and we have not reached any agreement with the government at this point. Some of the government’s requests have aligned with policies and practices that we believe are important to advancing our mission, particularly to provide a safe and inclusive campus community. I stand firmly behind the commitments we outlined on March 21, and all the work that has been done to date. Other ideas, including overly prescriptive requests about our governance, how we conduct our presidential search process, and how specifically to address viewpoint diversity issues are not subject to negotiation.
To be clear, our institution may decide at any point, on its own, to make difficult decisions that are in Columbia’s best interests. Any good institution must do that. Where the government – or any stakeholder – has legitimate interest in critical issues for our healthy functioning, we will listen and respond. But we would reject heavy-handed orchestration from the government that could potentially damage our institution and undermine useful reforms that serve the best interests of our students and community. We would reject any agreement in which the government dictates what we teach, research, or who we hire. And yes, to put minds at ease, though we seek to continue constructive dialogue with the government, we would reject any agreement that would require us to relinquish our independence and autonomy as an educational institution.
Like many of you, I read with great interest the message from Harvard refusing the federal government’s demands for changes to policies and practices that would strike at the very heart of that university’s venerable mission. In this moment, a continued public conversation about the value and principles of higher education is enormously useful. I am especially concerned that many Americans have lost faith and trust in higher education. We should continue the hard work of understanding why. At the same time, we must more clearly explain what we here, at Columbia, know instinctively about the vital contributions we make to the world.
I want to turn to our international students, who are essential to our unique and powerful ecosystem, and who are experiencing enormous distress. We have been following with great concern the various actions being taken by the federal government toward members of our community. We know this has provoked not only anxiety, but multiple new, day-to-day challenges for our international student community. For that reason, the University launched a new University fund, supported by my office, our Board of Trustees, and generous alumni, to assist students who need help managing unanticipated expenses and other challenges right now.
This comes alongside our recently announced commitment of additional resources to our International Students and Scholars Office (ISSO) to expand their ability to help our international students, through logistical, legal, and mental health support, including a significant expansion of hours and staff resources. I’m pleased to announce a new websitededicated to these efforts.
We are navigating a turbulent time for higher education. The challenges ahead of us are formidable. Knowing Columbia as I do, and as you do, I am confident that we will get through this to serve our students, faculty, staff, and society for centuries to come.
Sincerely,
Claire Shipman
Acting President, Columbia University in the City of New York
As Predictable as the Flowers That Bloom in the Spring, Tra La
Susman Godfrey Gets Its Temporary Restraining Order
Matilda Moneybags and the Blessed Virgin
“Is it Possible That We Will Avoid a Recession?”
Just got off a Zoom with Matilda Moneybags, the head honcho at my financial advisory firm. Someone asked, “Is it possible that we’ll avoid a recession?”
“Yes, it is possible,” Matilda responded.
“But, on the other hand,” she added, “I’m a practicing Catholic, and I believe it’s possible that the Blessed Mother will appear in my living room this afternoon. And if that should happen, I would welcome her to my home.”
Harvard’s President to Mango Mussolini: Fuck You Very Much
Dear Members of the Harvard Community,
For three-quarters of a century, the federal government has awarded grants and contracts to Harvard and other universities to help pay for work that, along with investments by the universities themselves, has led to groundbreaking innovations across a wide range of medical, engineering, and scientific fields. These innovations have made countless people in our country and throughout the world healthier and safer. Over the last several weeks, the federal government has threatened its partnerships with several universities, including Harvard, over accusations of antisemitism on our campuses. These partnerships are among the most productive and beneficial in American history. New frontiers beckon us with the prospect of life-changing advances—from treatments for diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and diabetes, to breakthroughs in artificial intelligence, quantum science and engineering, and numerous other areas of possibility. For the government to retreat from these partnerships now risks not only the health and well-being of millions of individuals, but also the economic security and vitality of our nation.
Late Friday night, the administration issued an updated and expanded list of demands, warning that Harvard must comply if we intend to “maintain [our] financial relationship with the federal government.” It makes clear that the intention is not to work with us to address antisemitism in a cooperative and constructive manner. Although some of the demands outlined by the government are aimed at combating antisemitism, the majority represent direct governmental regulation of the “intellectual conditions” at Harvard.
I encourage you to read the letter to gain a fuller understanding of the unprecedented demands being made by the federal government to control the Harvard community. They include requirements to “audit” the viewpoints of our student body, faculty, staff, and to “reduc[e] the power” of certain students, faculty, and administrators targeted because of their ideological views. We have informed the administration through our legal counsel that we will not accept their proposed agreement. The University will not negotiate over its independence or its constitutional rights.
The administration’s prescription goes beyond the power of the federal government. It violates Harvard’s First Amendment rights and exceeds the statutory limits of the government’s authority under Title VI. And it threatens our values as a private institution devoted to the pursuit, production, and dissemination of knowledge. No government—regardless of which party is in power—should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.
Our motto—Veritas, or truth—guides us as we navigate the challenging path ahead. Seeking truth is a journey without end. It requires us to be open to new information and different perspectives, to subject our beliefs to ongoing scrutiny, and to be ready to change our minds. It compels us to take up the difficult work of acknowledging our flaws so that we might realize the full promise of the University, especially when that promise is threatened.
We have made it abundantly clear that we do not take lightly our moral duty to fight antisemitism. Over the past fifteen months, we have taken many steps to address antisemitism on our campus. We plan to do much more. As we defend Harvard, we will continue to:
- nurture a thriving culture of open inquiry on our campus; develop the tools, skills, and practices needed to engage constructively with one another; and broaden the intellectual and viewpoint diversity within our community;
- affirm the rights and responsibilities we share; respect free speech and dissent while also ensuring that protest occurs in a time, place, and manner that does not interfere with teaching, learning, and research; and enhance the consistency and fairness of disciplinary processes; and
- work together to find ways, consistent with law, to foster and support a vibrant community that exemplifies, respects, and embraces difference. As we do, we will also continue to comply with Students For Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which ruled that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act makes it unlawful for universities to make decisions “on the basis of race.”
These ends will not be achieved by assertions of power, unmoored from the law, to control teaching and learning at Harvard and to dictate how we operate. The work of addressing our shortcomings, fulfilling our commitments, and embodying our values is ours to define and undertake as a community. Freedom of thought and inquiry, along with the government’s longstanding commitment to respect and protect it, has enabled universities to contribute in vital ways to a free society and to healthier, more prosperous lives for people everywhere. All of us share a stake in safeguarding that freedom. We proceed now, as always, with the conviction that the fearless and unfettered pursuit of truth liberates humanity—and with faith in the enduring promise that America’s colleges and universities hold for our country and our world.
Sincerely,
Alan M. Garber
Facing MAGA 