[link removed]

Hello, everyone! I’m Jacob Knutson, a reporter for Democracy Docket, and I’m excited to welcome you to The Opposition. Each week, I’ll help you navigate the efforts to use the courts to stop President Donald Trump’s power grab. You can expect in-depth coverage of the week’s top stories, detailed analysis of burgeoning legal issues and interviews with those fighting to keep the administration in check.

To start us off, a look at Trump’s “Burger King receipt” executive orders. Also in this edition: The case that could ignite a showdown between the executive and judicial branches, and data undercutting the GOP’s “biased judges” claims.

Before we begin, I’d like to say that I want to hear from you. Your thoughts, concerns and questions are always welcome. Most importantly, I welcome your feedback. Please email me any time at [email protected] and I will do my best to respond.

You’re reading the first edition of Democracy Docket’s newest premium newsletter, The Opposition. Every Thursday morning, The Opposition dives into the latest efforts in our nation’s courtrooms to bring President Trump to account for his actions. To make sure you don’t miss out on next week’s issue, become a Democracy Docket member today ([link removed]) .

Catch up quickly

* Democrats and watchdog groups filed three separate lawsuits ([link removed]) to block Trump’s sweeping elections executive order. If allowed to stand, the directive could disenfranchise millions of eligible voters while vastly expanding the executive branch’s power over federal elections.

* The Trump administration admitted in a court filing ([link removed]) that it made an “administrative error” by deporting a Salvadoran man to a hard labor prison in El Salvador. A court had previously determined that the man should not be sent to his home country because he could be persecuted and tortured by gangs that extorted his family.

* A split federal appeals court cleared the way ([link removed]) for Trump to remove two members of independent federal boards. Lawsuits challenging their dismissals are ongoing. If courts ultimately uphold their firings, Trump could gain unprecedented power over independent regulatory agencies.


** Trump’s executive disorder
------------------------------------------------------------
[link removed]

No president has sought to so rapidly alter the country by decree than Trump. On average, he’s currently signing over 1.5 executive orders every day.

We’re still weeks from Trump’s 100-day mark, but he’s already broken former President Franklin D. Roosevelt's record of 99 executive orders issued within his first 100 days in office.

Roosevelt was attempting to guide the country through the worst economic crisis in modern history. Trump, on the other hand, appears to be pushing the country toward new political ([link removed]) and economic ([link removed]) crises.

Through his dictates ([link removed]) , Trump has attempted to override the plain language ([link removed]) of the Constitution, usurp Congress’ power to create ([link removed]) federal offices and appropriate ([link removed]) funds, and wrest control ([link removed]) over elections from the states.

Presidents have used executive orders for many different purposes but generally they are directives to the government to take certain actions to ensure laws passed by Congress are executed. And they are permissible so long as they are rooted in the president’s power as outlined by the Constitution or federal law.

If they go beyond that, they should be considered equivalent to “a scribbled note on a Burger King receipt,” Justin Levitt, a professor of constitutional law at Loyola Marymount University and a former deputy assistant attorney general at the Department of Justice, recently told me.

“An executive order that does not stem from a basic constitutional authority is just a post on Truth Social with a fancy header,” Levitt said.

Numerous organizations have filed lawsuits challenging several of Trump’s orders. Around half of the 64 major Trump lawsuits we’re tracking at Democracy Docket are direct challenges to Trump’s decrees, while many other cases confront secondary effects of orders.

“There’s a dangerous time ahead in which the leader of the executive branch will continue to assert powers that he doesn’t have,” Levitt said. “But one of the clearest ways to restore constitutional balance is to remember that that's fiction.”

TRUMP ACCOUNTABILITY TRACKER ([link removed])

Democracy Docket is tracking the 64 most important Trump accountability lawsuits related to democracy. Here are some key updates on the cases we are tracking. ([link removed])

Overhauling Federal Elections

3 lawsuits have been filed against this action.

Status: Courts have yet to grant relief, so the action is in effect.

Dismantling Agencies (CFPB, USAID, Dept. of Education)

11 lawsuits have been filed against these efforts.

Status: Courts have blocked some efforts to dismantle the USAID and the CFPB. Courts have yet to rule on efforts to dismantle the Department of Education.

Targeting Federal Employees and Civil Service

9 lawsuits have been filed against this action.

Status: Courts have blocked actions firing federal workers at several agencies including the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior, Treasury and Veterans Affairs.

Unlawfully Dismissing Political Appointees

7 lawsuits have been filed against this action.

Status: Courts allowed the termination of key political appointees including the chair of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), a National Labor Relations Board member, the head of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel.

Federal Funding Freeze

7 lawsuits have been filed against this action.

Status: Courts have blocked most efforts to freeze federal funds.

The moment of truth case

The Trump administration last week asked the Supreme Court to lift a district judge’s order and allow it to use the Aliens Enemies Act (AEA), an 18th-century wartime law, to deport people to a Salvadoran hard labor prison without due process.

It marked the eighth ([link removed]) time Trump appealed to the Supreme Court’s emergency — or “shadow” ([link removed]) — docket to intervene and stay lower-court orders blocking various aspects of his agenda. SCOTUS punted ([link removed]) on one of the president’s requests and denied ([link removed]) another, leaving six pending.

SCOTUS could grant or deny Trump’s stay application in the AEA lawsuit any day now. Just how justices handle the case will not only give us more insight into how receptive the court’s Republican-appointed majority is to Trump’s sweeping assertions of presidential power. It will also show how willing the court is to protect the judicial branch and the rule of law.

How the Trump administration reacts should the Supreme Court uphold the lower court’s ruling will also be telling. Considering the many attacks ([link removed]) Trump and his allies have launched on lower-court judges, including threatening impeachment, there’s a significant risk that Trump and his allies will do the same toward conservative Supreme Court justices if they rule against the government.

It’s worth remembering that Justice Amy Coney Barrett was already the target of MAGA’s outrage earlier this year after siding with Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s liberal justices in denying one of Trump’s emergency applications and for apparently looking at the president incorrectly ([link removed]) . Roberts, too, faced pushback from Trump allies ([link removed]) and MAGA figures ([link removed]) after mildly rebuking ([link removed]) the use of impeachment threats for judicial decisions.

There’s of course the looming possibility of Trump ignoring the Supreme Court, which would definitively plunge the country into a constitutional crisis. Ominously, prominent Trump officials — including the vice president ([link removed]) — have openly questioned the judiciary’s authority and floated the prospect of defying the courts in recent weeks. And in the AEA case, it appears that the government may have been doing just that ([link removed]) .

A reality check to the GOP’s ‘activist judges’ claims

In its most recent application to the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice insinuated ([link removed]) that lower courts are ruling against the government because they are prejudiced against Trump.

“In the two months since Inauguration Day, district courts have issued more than 40 injunctions or TROs against the Executive Branch,” acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris claimed. She noted that district courts issued 14 national injunctions against the federal government during the first three years of former President Joe Biden’s term but issued 15 similar orders against Trump in February alone.

The DOJ’s bias allegations — which Republicans regurgitated in a House Judiciary committee hearing ([link removed]) on “judicial overreach” earlier this week — are comically weak.

Yes, lower courts have issued dozens of orders declaring Trump policies illegal or unconstitutional. That’s because the president has issued dozens of dubious orders and is testing legal norms on a daily basis.

Also missing from DOJ’s analysis are the ideological leanings of the judges ruling against Trump. Adam Bonica, a professor of political science at Stanford, recently found ([link removed]) that liberal, conservative and centrist judges appear to be ruling against the administration’s policies at similar rates.

The cross-ideological rulings suggest that Trump’s actions may raise legal issues that transcend partisan divides and concern core questions about the country’s constitutional order, Bonica noted.

To do list

* Millions of people across the country may attend protests against the Trump administration’s power grab this Saturday, April 5. Coordinated by the consumer advocacy nonprofit Public Citizen and other groups, there will be demonstrations in almost every state. You can find a rally near you with this map ([link removed]) .
* The federal judge overseeing the AEA lawsuit will hold a hearing ([link removed]) at 3 p.m. today over whether the Trump administration violated his order halting deportations under the act. You can listen in by calling 833-990-9400 and entering this meeting ID number: 049550816.

Quote of the week

In each issue, I’ll share an important quote that I came across during the week. Our first comes from a statement ([link removed]) signed by 1,300 former Department of Justice officials from both Republican and Democratic administrations condemning Trump’s retribution campaign against major law firms:

Make no mistake: the Trump Administration’s punitive and unjust actions are wrong even if — especially if — they prove effective at silencing lawyers. Might does not make right. Indeed, these actions are particularly dangerous when they succeed in intimidating lawyers into abandoning their fundamental role in our justice system.
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]

We also understand that not everyone is able to make this commitment, which is why our free daily and weekly newsletters aren’t going anywhere! If you prefer not to receive samples of our premium content and only want our free daily and weekly newsletters,you can opt out here ([link removed]) .

For questions about your subscription or general support, visit our FAQ page here ([link removed]) . You can update your preferences ([link removed]) or unsubscribe from this list ([link removed]) . View this email in your browser. ([link removed])

View email in browser ([link removed]) .

Democracy Docket LLC
250 Massachusetts Ave NW Ste 400
Washington, DC 20001-5825
USA