A new episode of the Insider podcast is now out. Preet Bharara and Joyce Vance discuss:
– An appellate court’s decision ordering Judge James Boasberg to end his criminal-contempt inquiry into the Trump administration over Alien Enemies Act deportations;
– The Trump administration’s efforts to overturn Steve Bannon’s contempt of Congress conviction and the seditious conspiracy convictions of January 6th rioters;
– House Democrats’ articles of impeachment against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth; and
– The legal fight over construction of President Trump’s new White House ballroom.
A NOTE FROM THE PRODUCER
Claudia Hernández is a Producer of the Stay Tuned with Preet and Insider podcasts.
Has the judiciary once again granted more power to the executive branch?
On a new episode of the Insider podcast, Preet Bharara and Joyce Vance discuss a federal appeals court decision halting Judge James Boasberg’s criminal contempt probe into the Trump administration’s Alien Enemies Act deportations.
In the majority opinion, Judge Rao grants the Trump administration exactly what it wants, but, as Joyce points out, it might come at a cost:
Joyce: “[This decision] both brings about an end to these contempt proceedings, which are dangerous for the administration…But of course, Judge Rao is also adopting this maximalist view of executive power at the expense, interestingly enough, of the judiciary. She’s saying judges don’t have the ability to do this because they’re encroaching on the executive branch.”
As Preet explains, district court judges have always had contempt powers, allowing them to conduct contempt proceedings and present their findings, which the government can then appeal. By issuing this decision, the appeals court has allowed that process to be skirted.
In an 80-page dissent, Judge Childs, emphasizes these points, warning of the dangerous precedent the majority’s opinion sets for future cases.
Preet: “Separate and apart from saying the majority has stymied the district court’s inherent and statutory powers, the court, this dissent says, has done so in a way that will affect not only these contempt proceedings, but will also echo in future proceedings against all litigants.”
Joyce: “If there’s one branch of government, one institution in American society that’s been willing to tell this administration no from time to time, it has been federal district court judges. They have really, in many ways, been the firewall between the administration and the Constitution. And so I think that’s what this judge is saying to us…The reality here is that [Judge Childs] is trying to point out the danger of the majority decision, which says there can’t be any proceeding. There can’t be any fact-finding. When the government says there was no contempt, the court has to accept that at face value.”
What will this mean for future cases?
Listen to the episode and comment below with your thoughts and questions. Thank you for being a member of our community here on Substack. If you’re not yet a paying subscriber, you can now listen to a free excerpt from the show. For access to the full analysis, upgrade your subscription.
Stay Informed,
Claudia
