The Daily - Trump’s Showdown With the Courts

Episode Date: March 19, 2025

President Trump’s showdown with the courts reached a new milestone on Tuesday, when he called for a federal judge to be impeached and the chief justice of the Supreme Court publicly scolded the president in response.Luke Broadwater, who covers the White House for The Times, discusses the deportation case at the center of the confrontation — and whether the constitutional crisis that many have feared has now arrived.Guest: Luke Broadwater, who covers the White House for The New York Times.Background reading: A judge ordered deportation planes to turn around. The White House didn’t listen.The order has made the judge in the deportation case a target of Republican anger.For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday. Photo: Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

From the New York Times, I'm Rachel Abrams. This is The Daily. Yesterday, the showdown between President Trump and the courts reached a new milestone when Trump called for a federal judge to be impeached. And in response, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court publicly scolded the president for attacking a member of the bench. Today, I spoke to my colleague Luke Broadwater about the deportation case at the center of the showdown and whether the constitutional crisis that many have feared is now actually

here. It's Wednesday, March 19th. Luke, hi. Thank you so much for being here. Hi. Thanks for having me. So, Luke, every day since Trump came into office, it has really felt like the new administration has done something to make people who know about the law and the constitution really nervous

that we are headed towards some kind of a crisis, that there's gonna be some kind of a showdown between the president and the courts, unlike anything we've ever seen before. But so far, largely all of those fears, all of that conjecture has been pretty theoretical, except in the last few days. In the last few days, it feels like something has changed

and maybe the crisis has actually arrived. You're right, there's been a lot of concern since the start of the Trump administration about what would happen when or if the president began to disregard judicial rulings. And I would say this weekend was the starkest example to date of the president pushing the boundaries against the federal judiciary.

And we saw the executive branch battling it out in court with the judiciary. And it's really reached a fever pitch here in Washington. And it all concerns the deportation of about 200 migrants from Venezuela to El Salvador. Okay, so I want to walk through how we got to this point. So tell us the basics of this deportation case that you just mentioned that have led us to this moment? Well, for a long time, the Trump administration has wanted to deport people from the country faster and more aggressively than what was happening under the Biden administration. And the Trump administration has succeeded in doing that to a large extent, but it's

not been fast enough for what President Trump and his top allies want to see. So they have been sort of combing through old laws, old statutes to try to figure out how they can get more people out of the country as quickly as possible without so many judges and reviews and hearings standing in their way. And so on Friday, the president takes an extraordinary step. He signs an executive order in which he invokes wartime powers from the 1700s called the Alien Enemies Act, which is really supposed to apply to a time of war. He claims the United States is being invaded and the order targets a criminal gang from

Venezuela. And using this authority, he argues he is able to bypass the normal system of judicial review and deport hundreds of migrants to holding cells in El Salvador. So it sounds like there are actually two things that are sort of unusual just right off the bat. One is that the United States is deporting these people to a country that they are not from. And the second thing that's unusual is that he's relying on this law that is not typically or maybe ever used for deportations. That's absolutely right. What's happened here is the United States has struck a deal with the government of El Salvador to ship migrants that the United States doesn't want in the country to El Salvador to jail cells there.

That is an extraordinary step. And then on top of that, it isn't announced. The border is kept under wraps. And so the Trump administration can begin setting the wheels in motion to start these deportations without people really knowing about it. Now, this is where things get interesting. The ACLU caught wind that the administration was planning to do this executive order, and they file a preemptive lawsuit to try to block it. They are able to file it on behalf of five migrants who would be subject to deportation. And that sets in motion what's essentially

a weekend long sprint between the administration and the ACLU with both sides trying to race to either deport these people or block the deportations. And Luke, what exactly is the ACLU arguing here? Well, they're arguing, one, that the president cannot invoke these wartime powers because the country is not at war with Venezuela. Right. because the country is not at war with Venezuela. But more fundamentally, it's that everybody in America is supposed to get due process. That we don't actually know whether or not these men who are being held in these detention facilities are the hardened criminals the Trump administration says they are, if they

haven't had a hearing before a judge. We have lawyers and family members of some of these people who say they are not gang members. And so how can the administration be sure, how can the American public be sure that the allegations against them are in fact true? So without a hearing, without due process, that becomes a fundamental violation of really core American principles. And so that's the larger issue at stake here

is will the judge allow these expedited deportations to take place under the guise that this is an act of war, or will he enforce the existing immigration laws? So what happens with this court case? So as I said, it's a bit of a rush. The judge, James Boasberg, on Saturday night after the lawsuit is filed, sets up a hearing for the afternoon. Before that hearing can take place, the Trump administration quickly starts to deport people from jail cells in Texas.

They line up vans, they take people to the airport, they start putting people on planes headed first for Honduras and then ultimately for El Salvador and as The hearing gets underway. It's very clear right away that the judge has big concerns about what the administration is doing and Starts to side with the ACLU. He starts to agree that there should be a halt on these deportations. And at one point, he specifically orders the lawyers for the government to tell their clients, who are the Trump administration and ICE, to turn the planes around and get them back onto American soil so that these people can have a fair hearing.

And the judge says that the government has to comply with this order immediately. And did they? Well, the planes do not turn around. And we know this because the next morning, the president of El Salvador celebrates the arrival of these deportation flights into his country and sort of mocks the judge's order.

He posts a link to an article about the planes being ordered to turn around and writes, oopsie, too late with a laugh crying emoji. And then, posts sort of dramatic video shot in this very cinematic style in which there's this tremendous show of force where you have men with guns and military fatigues taking these detainees off the American planes and into prisons in El Salvador and their frog marching them down the steps. And it all looks very tough on crime and clearly meant to send a message

that this is a major operation, that this president is aggressive and tough on criminals. And it's even retweeted by secretary of state Marco Rubio. And so it all feels like Rubio and the president of El Salvador are basically saying, we saw the judge's order, but we're not going to follow it. So this all feels intentional, but there's still an open question as to whether the United States government

specifically defied the judge's order. And that is the question the judge has on his mind when he summons the Trump administration back into court on Monday to answer the question of whether they knowingly and intentionally disobeyed a court order. We'll be right back. So Luke, what happens once the judge hauls the DOJ lawyers into his court on Monday to explain whether or not they defied his order? So this is a major hearing, and all of Washington is awaiting what the Trump administration will say.

It seems pretty clear that the administration did not listen to the judge's order when he told them to turn around mid-flight, because those flights we now know have landed in El Salvador. And so a lot of us were wondering, will the Trump administration apologize? Will they say we got it wrong? We misunderstood? Will they openly defy the judge and say, you have no power over us?

And what actually happens is the Trump administration attempts to argue that they technically did comply with the judge's order. How? So, yes, the judge told them to turn the planes around mid-flight, but they come up with the argument that he said that from the bench, that that was a verbal order, and 40 minutes later he put out a very brief written order that didn't say turn the planes around. It just sided with the ACLU. And so they technically didn't disobey the written order.

The planes were already in the air. They were over international waters, they argue. And so maybe it wasn't a violation of the judge's order. These are the arguments the Trump administration puts forth. Right. I'm not a lawyer, but the idea that you'd tell a judge, like, well, you didn't write that down so we don't have to follow it feels tenuous? Almost every legal expert I talked to said the same thing.

And in fact, the judge also wasn't really buying it. He from the bench called it a heck of a stretch. And what about the second part of the argument that the planes were already in the air? Like, I mean, planes can be turned around, obviously. Like, what does that have to do with it? Right, the Trump administration is arguing that, I guess, the judge's jurisdiction doesn't extend beyond American soil. And so once the planes got out of American airspace, that they were no longer subject to the order, again, every legal expert I talked to says that the judge's orders apply to the American government and the government has to follow them. And so if he ordered the plane to turn around, they should have immediately

gotten that message to the personnel on the plane and turn those planes around. But this is the argument the Trump administration is making. And the judge has not yet ruled on that whether or not they're correct or incorrect. So, you know, despite what legal experts are saying, it still is an open matter before this judge. Okay, but let's just assume for the sake of argument that they are correct, that there is a jurisdiction issue here. Do we know if it's true that the planes were actually gone by the time the written ruling was issued?

Well, we spent a lot of time researching this, looking at flight logs and determining exactly when these planes took off from Texas, where they went, when they landed there. And we can say pretty definitively that two of the planes were in fact in the air before both the verbal order and the written order. But there's a third plane and that plane does not leave Texas, does not leave the ground of America until after the judge's written order is posted online. Okay, so one of the three planes you could argue should have been made aware of that order and stayed grounded.

Well, at first glance, it seems like that. But the Trump administration argues this third plane is not subject to the judge's order. And they say that they specifically put migrants on that plane who they were deporting for reasons that were not solely related to these wartime powers that were invoked by President Trump They're saying that those migrants on the third plane did in fact have due process And so yes, they left after the judge's order, but ice went through Determined that they could still be deported even with the judge's order halting the flights. So they're arguing that this third flight technically is not covered by the judge's

order and therefore did not violate it. So does the judge buy that? So the judge is frustrated that there isn't more information provided and he demands the government present a sworn statement attesting that they in fact didn't put anyone on this third plane who was being deported under Donald Trump's new order. And the government does on Tuesday issue a sworn statement attesting that they didn't violate the order with this third plane. But they do not go along with the other part of the judge's order, which is the judge wanted

a lot more details about who these people were on the plane, under what authorities they are being removed. The judge even offered to say, well, we can do it in closed hearing. We can go to a secure place if you have security concerns. And in the government's filing on Tuesday, they essentially told him to pound sand, that they didn't have to give him any more information. And they argue that essentially he's going to have to take their word for it that they did everything legally. Right.

The screw you was silent. Yeah. I mean, that's one way to read it, certainly. Meanwhile, there's a bit of dual messaging going on. You know, while in court the administration is saying they complied with the judge's order. Outside of court, different members of the administration are sending an entirely different message. So Tom, this is a promise made, a promise kept, but it looks like a judge is trying

to stop this. Why? I don't know why. I don't know why any judge would want terrorists return to the United States. Tom Homan, who's known as Donald Trump's border czar, goes on Fox News. And we're going to make this country safe again. I'm proud to be a part of this administration. We're not stopping. I don't care what the judges think. I don't care what the left thinks. We're coming. And he says, I don't care what the judge has to say.

And then Donald Trump himself begins to rail against this judge. President Trump posted on social media calling for the judge to be impeached, saying he's radical left lunatic, a troublemaker, and agitator. And demanded he be impeached. Wow. So they're really digging in here.

Absolutely. Now politically, there is an advantage here to the Trump administration. Explain that. You have a president who has sworn to get tough on the border and get tough on crime, expelling from the United States by his description, hundreds of criminal gang members. And so that's an easy narrative to understand. Who in the world wouldn't want a bunch of criminal gang members kicked out of the country? And what kind of crazy liberal judge would order those gang members back into America? And if you watch conservative media, that's the argument they're putting out.

This judge wants these gang members roaming around the streets, attacking your family and loved ones. Obviously, this is terrain the Trump administration chose carefully to fight on, and they believe in the court of public opinion, most people will be on their side of this issue. Right. If you think about it, it's actually the perfect case for them because what better way is there to test the limits of the law other than on a case that will not engender a lot of sympathy? That's the challenge for the opponents of what Donald Trump is doing.

But you know who is paying very close attention to this case? The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Roberts. He on Tuesday takes a very rare step, and that is he issues a rare public statement pushing back against the attacks on this judge and says, for more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to a disagreement concerning a judicial decision. So he is very much sticking up for this judge, James Boesberg, and he is saying,

essentially, call off your dogs, Mr. President. It's not your place to attack our judges. You should abide by the court rulings and not start open warfare against a member of the judiciary. So what do you make of that? Because correct me if I'm wrong, but the Supreme Court doesn't actually get a say in whether a judge is impeached, right? Like that's Congress's authority.

Oh, no, absolutely not. It's up to Congress to impeach and convict and remove anyone in the federal government, including judges. But what Chief Justice John Roberts is doing here is he is using his stature and his standing as an institutionalist to try to get people away from these political impeachments and revenge against enemies and bring the country back to respect for the rule of law, respect for the courts, and respect for the judiciary back to its founding principles. Okay.

All of that makes a lot of sense, but do we think that Trump actually cares about any of that? well Donald Trump and his administration have Attempted time and time again to expand the powers of the executive branch And so whether it's this case or some other one there will be another day when Donald Trump's Administration is before the Supreme Court Attempting to win a court case about its own power. And I think at that point in time, he's going to have to care a lot about what John Roberts thinks.

Luke, I know we say this a lot in our business journalism, especially, you know, these days, but this really feels like unfamiliar territory. Like it does not feel like we have gotten this close to the precipice of a constitutional crisis, a showdown between judges and the president. So I just, can we play this out a little bit more to the possible conclusions here? Like, what if the judge tells the government, you did defy my order, you are in violation.

What happens after that? Sure, well, if the judge decides that, then he could issue penalties against the administration. He could order them to try to undo some of the things they've done. You could even see a scenario where he tried to order them to bring back the migrants from El Salvador and see how they would respond to those statements.

But I think the bigger picture you're getting at here is this may have been one of the biggest examples of the Trump administration defying a judge's order. And yes, they sort of did it with legalistic language and they came up with arguments to ignore the order, to turn the planes around, but they did it anyway. And what happens if they eventually stop coming up with the legalistic arguments and they just start defying judges' orders, and they keep doing it. And by the way, this is not the only case

where a judge is telling the Trump administration they have to halt or stop or change some of the very rapid overhauls they are making of the federal government. By my count, there's at least 15 orders from federal judges that have blocked major actions by the Trump administration. Those orders span all sorts of actions, freezing foreign aid, declaring birthright citizenship illegal.

So there's no shortage of dramatic actions the Trump administration is taking, but at many steps the only people that have been stepping up and it's successful at all in stopping some of these things have been federal judges. And if the Trump administration defies any of those orders, who would even enforce that? Well, that's the constitutional crisis that all these legal scholars keep talking about. The courts themselves don't have a military, they don't have a police force, they are reliant on the executive branch to enforce their orders.

The Justice Department reports to Donald Trump. And the president, under his new leadership team, has taken multiple steps to remove the Justice Department's independence, and to make sure that it would be his Justice Department and not an independent wing of government. And so what happens if a court orders the Justice Department to carry out some sort

of order or discipline against the executive branch and they decide not to follow it? Well now the courts don't have any enforcement power. And that is the constitutional crisis. Yeah, but what are the chances that Trump's Justice Department would enforce an order against its own administration? Right. Under past administrations, you wouldn't think twice about that. You would think, of course they would. But if there's a pattern developing where judges' orders are ignored, well now that becomes a real open question.

So is there any other recourse here? Like, would it just be what? Congress impeaching the president? Yeah, I mean, in the current political environment, there is essentially no chance of the Republican House and Senate impeaching and convicting Donald Trump. That might have been possible under earlier iterations of the American government. It certainly was possible a few decades ago when Congress was about to impeach Richard Nixon.

But Donald Trump has completely co-opted the Republicans in Congress. There is no independence there anymore. There is no appetite to stand up to him on any measure. And so if you are looking for a check on President Trump, it will not come from Congress. And the last place it can come from is the federal courts. And so that's why so many people are watching this case and trying to figure out what exactly will happen if the Trump administration in fact defies a court order.

And just to take this a step further, in the scenario that you just laid out, the president could basically do whatever he wants in defiance of the courts, no accountability from Congress. And that whole situation flies in the face of the checks and balances that are the bedrock of democracy in this country. So I just sort of wonder if what you just explained happens, can we still call ourselves a democracy if all of the powers are consolidated under

the president? Well the American system of government, our democracy is set up to have three co-equal branches. And if two of the branches have become subservient to the executive branch, well then I do think you really need to question whether we are in fact the kind of democracy, the kind of government that our founders intended. Luke, thank you very much. Thank you. On Tuesday, a House Republican took Trump's threat of impeaching the federal judge overseeing

the Venezuelan immigration case even further by introducing articles of impeachment against him. The Republican, Texas Representative Brandon Gill, said that the judge's ruling had, quote, usurped the executive's constitutional authority. So far, five House Republicans have signed on as co-sponsors. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. In a two and a half hour phone call on Tuesday with President Trump, Russian President Vladimir

Putin agreed to a limited ceasefire that would stop strikes on Ukraine's energy infrastructure but stop short of agreeing to the broader month-long halt in fighting that the US and Ukraine had wanted. While the deal marks the first time that both sides agreed to suspend some kind of attacks in the three-year war, Russia will continue its assault on Ukrainian civilians, cities, and ports. And a federal judge ruled that Elon Musk and his team at the Department of Government Efficiency likely violated the Constitution when they helped to close USAID.

The ruling appears to be the first time that a judge has moved to reign in Musk's power and it was based on the finding that the tech billionaire was acting as a federal employee without being properly appointed as one by President Trump. Today's episode was produced by Michael Simon Johnson, Shannon Lin, and Jessica Chung. It was edited by Maria Byrne and Paige Cowitt, contains original music by Rowan de Misto, Alicia Beatupe, and Marian Lozano, and was engineered by Chris Wood. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsberg of Wonder League. That's it for the Daily. I'm Rachel Abrams. See you tomorrow.