On July 8, the Supreme Court lifted a district court order which barred the Trump administration from eliminating thousands of jobs across the federal government. Though an important case, this isn’t the end of litigation over those firings. However, those seeking to oppose these RIFs (Reductions in Force) will now need to challenge them in a more piecemeal fashion, making such litigation more challenging and expensive.

First raised in the 1980s, the Unitary Executive Theory argues that the President should be allowed to fire the officials of all agencies, even if the positions are protected by Congress. President Trump’s administration has extended this theory beyond recognition to argue that agencies can refuse to spend money authorized by Congress, fire federal workers without following legal guidelines, and eliminate certain federal agencies completely. Dozens of cases are ongoing that will decide just how far the power of the Executive Branch can go.

In Trump v. Casa, the Supreme Court held that injunctions cannot be used to prohibit the Executive Branch from taking legal actions against persons or states not before the Court. In this case, that meant that persons in the 38 states that did not join the lawsuit wishing to claim U.S. citizenship based on their birth in the U.S. must bring their own legal case. This ban on universal injunctions will also affect dozens of other cases against the Trump administration.

The Supreme Court will be an important factor in determining how much of the Trump agenda will be implemented. But how does the Supreme Court decide difficult cases? There are many theories of constitutional interpretation, some of which are more disruptive to established case law than others. This episode will explore the many ways the Court will consider the unprecedented constitutional issues being presented by the actions of the Trump administration.

On June 22, 2025, President Trump initiated the most significant U.S. military strike on Iranian soil since 1979, hitting nuclear sites in support of Israeli military operations. Democrats protested that this attack was unconstitutional as it was done without authorization by Congress. Does the Constitution provide the President the unilateral authority to initiate military operations?

DEI is many things to many people. So, when President Trump issued Executive Orders targeting the practice, it's implementation was chaotic, unpredictable, and ripe for legal challenge. This podcast explores the history of DEI and the Trump admimistrations multi-pronged attack on it.

Today we are talking about the Venezuelan immigrants that the President sent to prison in El Salvador in early March. The court order that was supposted tp stop them didn't. So today we will be discussing what happened there, a little bit about what checks and balances mean, and whether we are in a constitutional crisis.

Sadena asks Ken: what powers does the Constitution give to the President and where do executive orders fall within it? What happens if someone does not follow an executive order?