Dahlia Lithwick on the Courts vs. Trump

·44 min·4 clips

Al Franken shares how his 102-year-old mother-in-law Fran survived as a widow with five kids, then asks about the Supreme Court pushing back against Trump.

Al Franken opens the episode with a personal Mother's Day tribute to his 102-year-old mother-in-law Fran, who raised five children as a widow with Social Security survivor benefits, framing the discussion around societal support systems. He then introduces Dahlia Lithwick, a legal analyst, to examine the judicial resistance to Trump's agenda. Lithwick cites Bloomberg data showing 200 courts have ruled against Trump in over 100 days, including Trump-appointed judges. They delve into the birthright citizenship case, where Trump argues to redefine the 14th Amendment, which Lithwick calls preposterous, referencing Professor Amanda Frost's analysis. The discussion shifts to law firms, with Lithwick detailing how firms like Perkins Coie refused Trump's pro bono demands and won in court, while others that caved faced backlash. She highlights a 102-page opinion by Judge Beryl Howell condemning the administration's actions. Lithwick then addresses deportation cases, noting Trump ignored court orders to halt removals to Seacott prison in El Salvador, raising constitutional crisis concerns. She explains the Supreme Court's role, including a late-night order where Roberts issued a ruling before a dissent, signaling internal discord. The conversation covers fetal personhood, with Lithwick warning it could criminalize miscarriages and affect IVF, citing the Alabama Supreme Court case. She also discusses the Comstock Act's potential revival to restrict abortion pills. Lithwick praises Harvard for resisting Trump's threats, drawing parallels to law firms' collective action. Throughout, she emphasizes that courts lack enforcement power, suggesting public action is needed. The episode concludes with Lithwick's insight that you cannot mollify a narcissist, summarizing Trump's approach.

As heard by us

Dahlia Lithwick tracks what happens when court orders meet executive evasion.

The courts-versus-Trump fight lands here as a test of whether judicial orders still mean what they say when an administration declines to treat them as binding.

Read the full review in PlayNext →

Why you'd press play

You want to know what happens when a court says 9-0, a judge says turn the planes around, and the executive branch still keeps moving.

Read the full recommendation in PlayNext →

Listen to the show on

Apple Podcasts Spotify

Play clips from this episode More from The Al Franken Podcast