The Constitution has this to say about the presidential oath of office:
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: – “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
The Constitution has this to say about the role of the courts:
The Judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior … The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution [or] the Laws of the United States …
When big law firms attacked by President Trump decided to make a deal with him rather than fight, many did so because their leaders feared that clients would abandon a firm caught on the administration’s bad side.
Now that logic may be getting less compelling. A major company, Microsoft, has dropped a law firm that settled with the administration in favor of one that is fighting it. …
On April 22, several attorneys at the law firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett informed the Delaware Court of Chancery that they would no longer be representing Microsoft in a case related to the company’s 2023 acquisition of the video game giant Activision Blizzard, according to court filings.
Simpson Thacher reached a deal with the White House last month in which the firm committed to perform $125 million in free legal work for causes acceptable to the Trump administration. In a joint statement with other firms making similar agreements, Simpson Thacher said the pro bono work would be on behalf of “a wide range of underserved populations.”
On the same day that the Simpson Thacher lawyers filed paperwork withdrawing from the Microsoft case, at least three partners at the firm Jenner & Block informed the court that they would be representing Microsoft in the case. Jenner is fighting in court to permanently block a Trump administration executive order targeting its business. …
In some cases, a client may worry that a law firm that has reached a deal with the White House has a conflict of interest that prevents it from aggressively representing the client. For example, the client may be a defendant in a lawsuit brought by the federal government and worry that a settling law firm would be reluctant to stand up to the administration.
Other clients may have broader concerns. A senior partner at another firm that does not have an agreement with the White House said his firm was beginning to attract clients from firms that had settled with the administration. The partner, who was not authorized to discuss client matters publicly, said prospective clients had indicated that they had lost confidence in settling firms for not standing up to an attack on the rule of law.
Some firms challenging the administration have sought to capitalize on this frustration, suggesting that their pushback reflects a commitment to fight on behalf of their clients as well.
The window of opportunity that allowed President Trump to overwhelm his adversaries with an onslaught of executive orders dismantling core American institutions is closing.
How does a stymied autocrat deal with defeat? As the opposition gains strength, frustrating the nation’s commander in chief, how will Trump respond?
It is unthinkable to imagine him graciously acknowledging defeat, changing direction and moving on.
Will he claim victory in defeat? Will he try to provoke his adversaries into violence in order to invoke the Insurrection Act?
Trump’s unpredictability makes it impossible to answer these questions with any certainty, but as his actions in the first three months of his second term demonstrate, Trump’s choices veer to the extreme. …
If, in the face of adversity, Trump and his allies attempt to overturn democracy, what are their chances? I asked Herbert Kitschelt, a professor of international relations at Duke and the 2025 recipient of the prestigious Johan Skytte Prize in political science, that question, and he provided a nuanced reply by email: “No scientific, evidence-based investigation can currently provide a factually grounded prognosis” on “whether and how Trump and the Christian evangelical-nationalist-Southern wing of the Republican Party might break the democratic Constitution of the United States,” he wrote.
Instead, Kitschelt argued, it is possible to “outline the forces that may impinge on whether this process will take place or not.”
Kitschelt then specified the four factors working in favor of the establishment of “an authoritarian coalition in the United States”:
U.S. technological innovativeness and productivity gains — more so than in other advanced capitalist countries — have generated anxiety among many occupational groups.
The U.S. has a weak welfare state — in terms of pensions, health care, unemployment insurance, aid to families with children, public education — when compared to just about any other advanced capitalist country.
America is the most inegalitarian advanced Western country, in terms of income and wealth. That induces rich people to promote politicians who distract the economically worse off from questions of economic distribution and focus their attention on issues of political governance, culture war, racial and ethnic hierarchies and nationalist claims to global supremacy.
Unlike any other Western democracy, America has a deeply antidemocratic, intolerant, illiberal religious strand.
Kitschelt went on to describe conditions in the United States that “are adverse to the victory of an authoritarian coalition” and are, in contrast, favorable to democracy:
America’s civil society: If it awakens from its current shock and slumber, signs of which are already emerging, it is likely that it will become a powerful force to uphold democracy.
Most importantly: American capitalism, large segments of the U.S. business class, whether in finance, I.T. and A.I., U.S. manufacturers in global production chains (vehicles, aerospace, pharma, etc.) and U.S. culture industries are averse to a MAGA & Tea Party authoritarian coalition. Populism undercuts property rights and the rule of law, rendering it impossible to make rational, profit-generating, long-term business investments.
A severe economic crisis, which Kitschelt believes is probable, given current trends, would sharply undermine Republican prospects in the 2026 congressional elections, which might prompt Trump and his allies to “realize that they cannot win a free and fair election and actually might face a defeat in the midterms severe enough to precipitate the impeachment of both president and vice president.”
The question then becomes, in Kitschelt’s view:
Will evangelical-nationalist clero-fascism — with other MAGA and Tea Party currents in tow — be capable of converting America into an electoral autocracy faster than U.S. civil society and large parts of the business sector will be able to mobilize a defense of American democracy and to stiffen the spine of the U.S. judiciary to preserve American institutions?
By now, we have all read a lot about the authoritarian playbook. If, by and large, judges can’t be intimidated, can’t be bought, and can’t be fooled, then, presumably, the next step in the authoritarian playbook would be to start arresting them.
We are now conditioned to look for that sort of thing to start happening. We hear that, a couple of days ago, the FBI arrested a state judge out in Milwaukee for something having to do with immigration. Our confirmation bias kicks in, and the chorus all proclaim in unison, “Well, the fascism is now beginning in earnest!”
To add to the circus atmosphere, Attorney General Blondi goes out in public to do her cosplay fascist act—encouraging us to fear that federal judges who follow the constitution and demand due process might risk arrest, too. See Aaron Blake (Washington Post), Pam Bondi’s striking comments on arresting judges.
As a side observation: most humans, myself included, try to make ourselves look morally better than we really are. But that seems to be going out of fashion. Now the Attorney General of the United States wants everyone to think she is Ilsa, the She Wolf of the SS.
A sign of the times, I suppose.
We now return to our regularly scheduled program.
Back in Milwaukee, Judge Dugan, learning that ICE was about to snatch one Eduardo Flores-Ruiz—a misdemeanor criminal defendant in a case before her— allegedly showed Señor Flores-Ruiz how to get out the side door, thereby delaying his capture by ICE by a few minutes.
I don’t know how many people witnessed this incident. I don’t know whether they all remember it the same way. I don’t know what Judge Dugan’s account is; I don’t know what she says she did or didn’t do, and I don’t know what she says about her her intent. Accordingly, I have no rational basis to reach a conclusion as to what actually went down.
I don’t know—because I haven’t researched the matter, and I don’t intend to do so—what are the words of the statutes that Judge Dugan is supposed to have violated. Nor do I know how these words have been interpreted in judicial decisions (“case law,” as we call it). I don’t know whether Judge Dugan’s conduct clearly violated the law, clearly did not violate the law, or fell into an ambiguous gray area. I don’t know whether she will claim to have consciously run a legal risk to herself in order to advance a higher moral principle. If she does make such a claim, I don’t how whether the evidence will back up her claim.
But here is something I do know. I do know that it would be unwise for our side to be tricked into arguing that “lawless behavior by our guys is OK, while lawless behavior by your guys is not OK.”
Instead, we should just reserve judgment on the facts and the law in this case, agree that everybody who breaks the law should be punished—and that, sometimes, people who decide to break the law to promote righteousness should suffer legal punishment. And then we should erect a statue in their honor.
Judges, as a group, share many, many things in common with the rest of the human race, as a group. But I want to mention two things that tend to set the judges apart. Two things that explain why the federal judiciary is holding it together, while, for example, the Skadden Arps Management Committee acts like a bunch of wusses.
First of all, think for a moment about what judges actually do every day. Well, a lot of what they do is ensure that criminals get their just deserts. Many criminals are violent. Many criminals, just like Mango Mussolini, threaten retribution. Threats to federal judges have reached an alarming level.
If you are the kind of person who backs down whenever an asshole leaves a threatening voicemail, then, most likely, you are not a federal judge.
Secondly, if you are a federal judge, at any level, then the chances are very good that you could make a lot more money doing something else. They want to live comfortably, but, unlike the Skadden Arps Management Committee, their nights are not occupied with dreams of avarice.
Federal district judges make about $240 thousand a year; appellate judges, about $262 thousand; and associate justices of the Supreme Court, about $304 thousand.
If you are a federal district judge, your compensation is the same as a second-year lawyer at one of the 100 top law firms.
If you are a judge on one of the federal courts of appeals, then you are making a small fraction of the compensation of a partner at one of the top 100 law firms.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court brings in a whopping $317 thousand. Back in the day, Chief Justice Roberts was a top partner of Hogan & Hartson, now Hogan Lovells, where the current profit per partner is more than $3 million a year.
That’s why, facing off against the very richest of our top law firms, Trump could huff and he could puff and he could blow their house down. They were, metaphorically, the kind of little pig who builds his house out of straw or wood.
Federal judges, as a group, are not that kind of little pig. They have physical courage. A lot of them have moral courage. And, for the most part, they can’t be bought.
Nor, may I add, are they stupid.
Trump gaslights.
But people try to gaslight every federal judge each and every day. Several times a day. They are used to it. It doesn’t work.
First, if anyone has forgotten or doesn’t know, I’d like to provide a brief reminder about who George Conway is. To put this in context: YouTube serves up a lot of legal commentators. Many of them have some relevant experience and some good points to make. But, in my opinion, Conway stands out as a Very Series Person. He is a graduate of Harvard College and Yale Law School, and, for 26 years, was a litigation partner of Wachtell, Lipson, Rosen & Katz, the richest law firm in the United States. Why did he leave? It’s not clear, but my speculation is that he had as much money as he needed for the rest of his life, and wanted to be a champion for the rule of law.
Conway understands exactly what is going on. And he has the capacity to explain what’s going on.
And here’s the second random point—the question of why Legal Team Trump are acting like a bunch of menacing clowns, as detailed in the video.
They have already been smacked down by the Supreme Court. And, as sure as God made little green apples, they are headed straight for a full on, definitive, rebuke by the Court.
Actually, lots and lots of rebukes—in the immigration cases, the law firm cases, the education cases, all as discussed in the video.
So … what the hell is Legal Team Trump’s game plan? Once, rebuked, to back down and look like idiots?
Or … to tell the Supreme Court to go to hell. But if THAT’s their plan, then why not stand on “principle” now, and just tell the lower courts that they “lack jurisdiction” or are “acting illegally”? That would be a bad plan—but not merely as bad as the menacing clown show That Legal Team Trump is staging now.
There is an answer to that question. They are acting like menacing clowns because they are fifth rate minds. And, of course, because they have to please His Most High Excellency on TV every day. In now way, have they thought through where all their tomfoolery is going to lead. In no way, do they know how to deal rationally with the likely consequences of their actions.
In short, the Trump legal shit show is entirely of a piece with the shit show in pretty much all other aspects of government. See Dana Milbank (Washington Post), For the Trump administration, it’s amateur hour
It is common ground that, on Friday night, the ACLU sounded the alarm, got the justices out of bed, told them that the Trump Administration had put a bunch of immigrants on buses, that the buses were headed to the airport, where a plane was headed for El Salvador, and that seven of the nine justices believed the ACLU and issued the Midnight Order.
The main issue, for purposes of the weekend, was whether the ACLU was just throwing sand in the Court’s eye, or whether the Administration really was trying to pull a fast one, tying the courts up in the niceties of their own procedures while a bunch of immigrants were headed to the gulag.
Now, as I said, the Solicitor General filed a 15-page weekend brief. And what, pray tell, did the Solicitor General say about the main issue?
He said nothing whatsoever about the main issue. And that is because there was nothing he could say, without either lying through his teeth or expressing open contempt for the Supreme Court.
Ladies and gentlemen, when you are compelled to file a brief that says nothing at all about the key issue then you are indeed having a horrible, terrible, no good, very bad day.
Part of the Solicitor General’s problem was that the Fake News Media had video of the immigrants on the buses – which passed by the exit to the Abilene, Texas, airport, turned around, and delivered the prisoners back to their Texas prison!
Unlike some in the Administration, the Solicitor General has enough sense to know that “who’re you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?” is not an argument you should make to the Supreme Court.
As leaders of America’s colleges, universities, and scholarly societies, we speak with one voice against the unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education. We are open to constructive reform and do not oppose legitimate government oversight. However, we must oppose undue government intrusion in the lives of those who learn, live, and work on our campuses. We will always seek effective and fair financial practices, but we must reject the coercive use of public research funding.
America’s system of higher learning is as varied as the goals and dreams of the students it serves. It includes research universities and community colleges; comprehensive universities and liberal arts colleges; public institutions and private ones; freestanding and multi-site campuses. Some institutions are designed for all students, and others are dedicated to serving particular groups. Yet, American institutions of higher learning have in common the essential freedom to determine, on academic grounds, whom to admit and what is taught, how, and by whom. Our colleges and universities share a commitment to serve as centers of open inquiry where, in their pursuit of truth, faculty, students, and staff are free to exchange ideas and opinions across a full range of viewpoints without fear of retribution, censorship, or deportation.
Because of these freedoms, American institutions of higher learning are essential to American prosperity and serve as productive partners with government in promoting the common good. Colleges and universities are engines of opportunity and mobility, anchor institutions that contribute to economic and cultural vitality regionally and in our local communities. They foster creativity and innovation, provide human resources to meet the fast-changing demands of our dynamic workforce, and are themselves major employers. They nurture the scholarly pursuits that ensure America’s leadership in research, and many provide healthcare and other essential services. Most fundamentally, America’s colleges and universities prepare an educated citizenry to sustain our democracy.
The price of abridging the defining freedoms of American higher education will be paid by our students and our society. On behalf of our current and future students, and all who work at and benefit from our institutions, we call for constructive engagement that improves our institutions and serves our republic.
Signed,
Jonathan Alger, President, American University
Suzanne Ames, President, Peninsula College
Carmen Twillie Ambar, President, Oberlin College
Denise A. Battles, President, SUNY Geneseo
Ian Baucom, Incoming President, Middlebury College
Allan Belton, President, Pacific Lutheran University
Hubert Benitez, President, Saint Peter’s University
Joanne Berger-Sweeney, President, Trinity College (CT)
Michael A. Bernstein, President, The College of New Jersey
Audrey Bilger, President, Reed College
Erik J. Bitterbaum, President, SUNY Cortland
Sarah Bolton, President, Whitman College
Mary H. Bonderoff, President, SUNY Delhi
Eric Boynton, President, Beloit College
Elizabeth H. Bradley, President, Vassar College
Brian Bruess, President, College of Saint Benedict and Saint John’s University
Adam Bush, President, College Unbound
Alison Byerly, President, Carleton College
Wendy Cadge, President and Professor of Sociology, Bryn Mawr College
Nancy Cantor, President, Hunter College CUNY
Alberto Jose Cardelle, President, SUNY Oneonta
Brian W. Casey, President, Colgate University
Ana Mari Cauce, Professor and President, University of Washington
Andrea Chapdelaine, President, Connecticut College
Thom D. Chesney, President, Southwestern College (NM)
Bryan F. Coker, President, Maryville College
Ronald B. Cole, President, Allegheny College
Jennifer Collins, President, Rhodes College
John Comerford, President, Otterbein University
Marc C. Conner, President, Skidmore College
La Jerne Terry Cornish, President, Ithaca College
Grant Cornwell, President, Rollins College
Isiaah Crawford, President, University of Puget Sound
Gregory G. Dell’Omo, President, Rider University
Kent Devereaux, President, Goucher College
Jim Dlugos, Interim President, Landmark College
Bethami Dobkin, President, Westminster University
Harry Dumay, President, Elms College
Christopher L. Eisgruber, President, Princeton University
Michael A. Elliott, President, Amherst College
Jane Fernandes, President, Antioch College
Damian J. Fernandez, President, Warren Wilson College
David Fithian, President, Clark University
Lisa C. Freeman, President, Northern Illinois University
Robert Gaines, Acting President, Pomona College
Alan M. Garber, President, Harvard University
Michael H. Gavin, President, Delta College
Mark D. Gearan, President, Hobart and William Smith Colleges
Melissa Gilliam, President, Boston University
Jorge G. Gonzalez, President, Kalamazoo College
Jonathan D. Green, President, Susquehanna University
David A. Greene, President, Colby College
William R. Groves, Chancellor, Antioch University
Jeremy Haefner, Chancellor, University of Denver
Yoshiko Harden, President, Renton Technical College
Anne F. Harris, President, Grinnell College
James T. Harris, President, University of San Diego
Marjorie Hass, President, Council of Independent Colleges
Richard J. Helldobler, President, William Paterson University
Wendy Hensel, President, University of Hawaii
James Herbert, President, University of New England
Doug Hicks, President, Davidson College
Mary Dana Hinton, President, Hollins University
Jonathan Holloway, President, Rutgers University
Robin Holmes-Sullivan, President, Lewis & Clark College
Robert H. Huntington, President, Heidelberg University
Nicole Hurd, President, Lafayette College
Wolde-Ab Isaac, Chancellor, Riverside Community College District
Karim Ismaili, President, Eastern Connecticut State University
J. Larry Jameson, President, University of Pennsylvania
Garry W. Jenkins, President, Bates College
Paula A. Johnson, President, Wellesley College
John E. Jones III, President, Dickinson College
Cristle Collins Judd, President, Sarah Lawrence College
David L. Kaufman, President, Capital University
Colleen Perry Keith, President, Goldey-Beacom College
Julie Johnson Kidd, President, Endeavor Foundation
Jonathan Koppell, President, Montclair State University
Sally Kornbluth, President, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Julie Kornfeld, President, Kenyon College
Michael I. Kotlikoff, President, Cornell University
Paula Krebs, Executive Director, Modern Language Association
Sunil Kumar, President, Tufts University
Bobbie Laur, President, Campus Compact
Frederick M. Lawrence, Secretary and CEO, Phi Beta Kappa Society
Hilary L. Link, President, Drew University
Patricia A. Lynott, President, Rockford University
Heidi Macpherson, President, SUNY Brockport
John Maduko, President, Connecticut State Community College
Lynn Mahoney, President, San Francisco State University
Daniel Mahony, President, Southern Illinois University
Maud S. Mandel, President, Williams College
Christine Mangino, President, Queensborough Community College
Amy Marcus-Newhall, President, Scripps College
Felix V. Matos-Rodriguez, Chancellor, City University of New York (CUNYAnne E. McCall, President, The College of Wooster
Richard L. McCormick, Interim President, Stony Brook University
Michael McDonald, President, Great Lakes Colleges Association
James McGrath, President and Dean, Cooley Law School
Patricia McGuire, President, Trinity Washington University
Maurie McInnis, President, Yale University
Elizabeth M. Meade, President, Cedar Crest College
Scott D. Miller, President, Virginia Wesleyan University
Jennifer Mnookin, Chancellor, University of Wisconsin–Madison
Robert Mohrbacher, President, Centralia College
Chris Moody, Executive Director, ACPA-College Student Educators International
Tomas Morales, President, California State University San Bernardino
Milton Moreland, President, Centre College
Kathryn Morris, President, St. Lawrence University
Ross Mugler, Board Chair and Acting President and CEO, Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges
Krista L. Newkirk, President, University of Redlands
Stefanie D. Niles, President, Cottey College
Claire Oliveros, President, Riverside City College
Robyn Parker, Interim President, Saybrook University
Lynn Pasquerella, President, American Association of Colleges and Universities
Laurie L. Patton, President, American Academy of Arts and Sciences
Beth Paul, President, Nazareth University
Christina Paxson, President, Brown University
Rob Pearigen, Vice-Chancellor and President, University of the South
Deidra Peaslee, President, Saint Paul College
Eduardo M. Peñalver, President, Seattle University
Ora Pescovitz, President, Oakland University
Darryll J. Pines, President, University of Maryland
Nicola Pitchford, President, Dominican University of California
Kevin Pollock, President, Central Carolina Technical College
Susan Poser, President, Hofstra University
Paul C. Pribbenow, President, Augsburg University
Vincent Price, President, Duke University
Robert Quinn, Executive Director, Scholars at Risk Network
Wendy E. Raymond, President, Haverford College
Christopher M. Reber, President, Hudson County Community College
Suzanne M. Rivera, President, Macalester College – Saint Paul, MN ( MBR )
Michael S. Roth, President, Wesleyan University
James Ryan, President, University of Virginia
Vincent Rougeau, President, College of the Holy Cross
Kurt L. Schmoke, President, University of Baltimore
Carol Geary Schneider, Acting Executive Director, Civic Learning and Democracy Engagement Coalition
Sean M. Scott, President and Dean, California Western School of Law
Zaldwaynaka Scott, President, Chicago State University
Philip J. Sisson, President, Middlesex Community College (MA)
Suzanne Smith, President, SUNY Potsdam
Valerie Smith, President, Swarthmore College
Paul Sniegowski, President, Earlham College
Barbara R. Snyder, President, Association of American Universities
Stephen Snyder, Interim President, Middlebury College
Weymouth Spence, President, Washington Adventist University
Terri Standish-Kuon, President and CEO, Independent Colleges of Washington
G. Gabrielle Starr, President, Pomona College
Karen A. Stout, President, Achieving the Dream
Tom Stritikus, President, Occidental College
Julie Sullivan, President, Santa Clara University
Aondover Tarhule, President, Illinois State University
Glena Temple, President, Dominican University
Steven J. Tepper. President, Hamilton College
Kellye Y. Testy, CEO, Association of American Law Schools
Tania Tetlow, President, Fordham University
Strom C. Thacker, President, Pitzer College
Scott L. Thomas, President, Sterling College
Deborah Trautman, President and CEO, American Association of Colleges of Nursing
Satish K. Tripathi, President, University at Buffalo, SUNY
Kyaw Moe Tun, President, Parami University
Brad Tyndall, President, Central Wyoming College
LaTanya Tyson, President, Carolina Christian College
Matthew P. vandenBerg, President, Ohio Wesleyan University
James Vander Hooven, President, Mount Wachusett Community College
Laura R. Walker, President, Bennington College
Yolanda Watson Spiva, President, Complete College America
Michaele Whelan, President, Wheaton College
Manya C. Whitaker, Interim President, Colorado College
Julie A. Manley White, Chancellor and CEO, Pierce College
Kim A. Wilcox, Chancellor, University of California, Riverside
Late this afternoon, Harvard filed suit against Team Trump. The complaint is here. The gist is found in paragraph 3, which reads as follows:
On April 11, 2025, citing concerns of antisemitism and ideological capture, the Government identified ten conditions Harvard must satisfy to receive federal research funding already committed to by the Governmentand relied on by Harvard, its researchers, and its affiliates (the “April 11 Letter,” attached as Exhibit A). Ex. A at 2,4. The Government dictated that Harvard “reform and restructur[e]” its governance to “reduc[e] the power” ofcertain students, faculty, and administrators. Id. at 2. It required that Harvard hire a third-party to conduct an“audit” of the viewpoints of Harvard’s student body, faculty, and staff. Id. at 3-4. Then, based on the results ofthis university-wide viewpoint audit, Harvard must “hir[e] a critical mass of new faculty” and “admit[] a critical mass of students” to achieve “viewpoint diversity” in “each department, field, or teaching unit”—to the Government’s satisfaction as determined in the Government’s sole discretion. Id. And the Government has demanded that Harvard terminate or reform its academic “programs” to the Government’s liking. Id. at 4. All told, the tradeoff put to Harvard and other universities is clear: Allow the Government to micromanageyour academic institution or jeopardize the institution’s ability to pursue medical breakthroughs, scientific discoveries, and innovative solutions.
The complaint alleges violation of the First Amendment in multiple ways, violation of the Administrative Procedures Act in multiple ways, and violation of statutory and constitutional authority.
Harvard’s Lawyers
The complaint identifies Harvard’s attorneys as individual partners of the Quinn Emanuel and King & Spalding firms—the two people who are known to have represented Harvard in discussions with Team Trump—along with four attorneys at Ropes & Gray, a distinguished old line Boston firm, and nine attorneys from four offices of Lehotsky Keller Cohn LLP, described as an elite litigation boutique firm.
The Lehotsky firm is well connected in conservative legal circles. One of the Lehotsky lawyers on the case was president of the Federalist Society at Harvard Law School.
Mr. Lehotsky, the first named partner of the firm, and the only attorney whose physical signature appears on the complaint, clerked for Justice Scalia and, at one point, directed litigation strategy for the United States Chamber of Commerce, where he was known for slaying regulatory dragons.
Harvard Alumni on the Supreme Court
Chief Justice Roberts, along with Justice Gorsuch and Justice Jackson, took their undergraduate degrees from Harvard College and their law degrees from Harvard Law School. Justice Kagan came to Harvard Law by way of Princeton.
I think sounds of silence signal that the legal part of Team Trump is having a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad weekend.
Meanwhile, an insightful op-ed in the N.Y. Times speaks of a recently invented right wing legal principle—the major questions doctrine, newly discovered as a conservative cure for perceived liberal excesses—that requires “clear congressional authorization” when the bureaucrats make decisions of great “economic and political significance.” Otherwise, bye-bye liberal policy adventuresomeness.
Now, Orange Mussolini is the poster child for one who makes decisions of great economic and political significance without a ghost of a shadow of congressional authorization.
Facing MAGA 