Ruth Marcus

newyorker.comThe Flimsy, Dangerous Indictment of James ComeyThe charges against the former F.B.I. director look weak. But they may be just the start of Donald Trump’s long-threatened drive to use the Justice Department to go after his enemies.

26 Sept 2025

We all knew the moment would come in the second Trump term when he got his way and used the DOJ to pursue foes. But it fees like a gut punch nonetheless. The Flimsy, Dangerous Indictment of James Comey www.newyorker.com/news/the-led...

newyorker.comPam Bondi’s Power PlayDonald Trump now has the Attorney General he always wanted—an ally willing to harness the law to enable his agenda.

19 Aug 2025

In Pam Bondi, Donald Trump finally has the attorney general he always wanted. My latest for the New Yorker, www.newyorker.com/magazine/202...

newyorker.comWhy a Devoted Justice Department Lawyer Became a Whistle-BlowerIn the first Trump Administration, “they didn’t say ‘Fuck you’ to the courts,” Erez Reuveni said.

11 July 2025

Erez Reuveni, the Justice Department whistleblower, speaks out. His words are powerful. My latest, www.newyorker.com/news/the-led...

newyorker.comThe Supreme Court Undercuts Another Check on Executive PowerIn leaping to defend the Trump Administration, the Court conveniently ignored a long-established precedent that prevented Presidents from firing independent-agency heads at will.

29 May 2025

The federal courts have been doing an impressive job of standing up to Trump. This includes SCOTUS, at times. But not always. See its latest gift to presidential power--conveniently ignoring a 90-year-old precedent. My latest for New Yorker www.newyorker.com/news/the-led...

storage.courtlistener.comstorage.courtlistener.com

27 May 2025

Annals of a judiciary losing its patience--this from the judge overseeing the case of migrants deported to dangerous third countries: "Defendants have mischaracterized this Court’s order, while at the same time manufacturing the very chaos they decry." storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

newyorker.comJ. D. Vance Warns Courts to Get in LineThe Vice-President says it’s time for Chief Justice John Roberts to step in and make judges behave. He’s wrong.

25 May 2025

Vance v. Roberts. My latest from New Yorker, about the vice president's wrongheaded claim that the federal courts are frustrating the will of the voters--and that the chief justice should intervene.

newyorker.comThe Astonishing Threat to Suspend Habeas CorpusThe Trump Administration is stepping up its war on the rule of law. Is this bluster aimed at intimidating judges, or the start of something worse?

20 May 2025

Fact check: No, Secretary Noem. Habeas corpus is not a constitutional right the president has to remove people from the country. It is a right the people have to combar the arbitrary use of executive power. I have a handy explanation for you here. www.newyorker.com/news/the-led...

Aaron Rupar@atrupar.com

HASSAN: What is habeas corpus? NOEM: Habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country HASSAN: That's incorrect

newyorker.comThe Stakes of the Birthright-Citizenship CaseThe Trump Administration is trying to use the case to stop lower-court judges from issuing “nationwide injunctions” against its unconstitutional executive orders.

19 May 2025

My take on the surprising and at least somewhat cheering oral arguments in the birthright citizenship case. The skeptical reception some justices gave to SG John Sauer was, I think, evidence that the Trump administration's aggressiveness may be costing it in court. www.newyorker.com/magazine/202...

washingtonpost.comTrump Justice Dept. considers removing key check on lawmaker prosecutionsThe Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section is charged with ensuring cases against elected officials are not politically motivated. The Trump administration is considering changing that.

17 May 2025

Who’s weaponizing now? Taking career prosecutors out of the equation and leaving it to Trump-installed US Attorneys is yet another dangerous move. www.washingtonpost.com/national-sec...

13 May 2025

The right to go to court to protest unlawful detention--habeas corpus--is, SCOTUS has said, “the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action.” Trump is "actively considering" suspending it. My latest, www.newyorker.com/news/the-led...

9 May 2025

Rest in peace, Justice David Souter. He was a remarkable and welcome surprise on the bench--touted (by WHCOS John Sununu) as a "home run for conservatives," he turned out to be a solid liberal who kept the court from lurching to the right for many years. Thank you, Justice Souter.

9 May 2025

Jan Crawford writes in her book about how Souter was chosen instead of Ken Starr, then the Solicitor General, to replace Justice Brennan. Bill Barr, then head of Office of Legal Counsel, and Michael Luttig--yes, that Judge Luttig--were upset about Starr's position on the "qui tam."

9 May 2025

law, which lets private parties sue on behalf of federal government. Barr/Luttig thought it was unconstitutional; Starr disagreed. Dick Thornburgh, then the AG, threatened to quit if Starr were tapped for SCOTUS. And this gave us David Souter, because WH was not ready with another backup.

newyorker.comIs This the End of the Separation of Church and State?The Justices, who have steadily eroded prohibitions on government sponsorship of religious schools, now seem ready to end them entirely.

6 May 2025

my latest for the New Yorker, on the incredible shrinking Establishment Clause. www.newyorker.com/news/the-led...

newyorker.comThe Conservative Lawyer Defending a Firm from Donald TrumpPaul Clement complained that Big Law was becoming “increasingly woke.” Now he’s defending one firm’s right to do just that.

25 Apr 2025

When it figured Donald Trump was coming for it, WilmerHale had a "Better Call Paul" moment. www.newyorker.com/news/persons...

newyorker.comThe Supreme Court Finally Takes on TrumpIn an overnight ruling, the Justices defended the rule of law. Will their toughness last?

The Supreme Court Finally Takes on Trump www.newyorker.com/news/the-led...

Will the administration demonstrate a learning curve? It’s been pretty flat line, so far, but they are reaping the consequences.

newyorker.comThe Supreme Court Finally Takes on TrumpIn an overnight ruling, the Justices defended the rule of law. Will their toughness last?

The Supreme Court Finally Takes on Trump www.newyorker.com/news/the-led...

I have overestimated this Supreme Court before, and this may be another instance, but at least this instance of Trumpian insubordination appears to have been too much for the justices to stomach. Except two, of course.

20 Apr 2025

Justice Alito's dissent is out in the Alien Enemies Act deportation case, joined by Justice Thomas. His issues with the court's "unprecedented and legally questionable relief" are technical, but I am struck by his reliance on government lawyer's assertion that no flights were planned for Fri or Sat.

20 Apr 2025

His colleagues in majority clearly did not think that assertion was trustworthy--with good reason. Notably, even Alito/Thomas stress the "Executive must proceed under the terms of our order," which requires sufficient notice and time to challenge removal. Trump administration on thin ice w/ Court.

20 Apr 2025

Also notably, the government lawyer's assertion was no flights were "then planned." In fact, he said the government reserved the right to have flights Saturday. So you have to bend over backwards, and then some, to trust administration in this situation (and others).

Thank God for the Supeme Court—a sentence I rarely write these days. Every day the administration’s defiance becomes more breathtaking and more blatant. Yesterday it was poised to violate a Supreme Coirt ruling that required it to provide due process to alleged Venezuelan gang members before…

View full thread

This extraordinary speed and apparent supermajority is the predictable and deserved result of the administration’s duplicity and defiance. The justices are signaling that they’ve had it. Will the administration get the message? Let’s hope, although past performance suggests no learning curve

As Judge Wilkinson reminded us in Abrego Garcia, the government should have nothing to fear from due process if it is confident in its case, here that that migrants are in fact gang members and that the Alien Enemies Act can be used against them.

Deporting them. The administration’s compliance was a scant paper in English, with scantier notice. The court has just stepped in, 7-2, to block any removal until further order. The two of course, are Alito and Thomas. But what a rebuke.

18 Apr 2025

Please sign up for New Yorker Daily to read rest: "We’re past the point of wondering whether the Administration will violate court orders... The pressing question is how forcefully judges will respond—and whether the Supreme Court will back them up. Developments this week bode well... "

18 Apr 2025

"The stakes here for the rule of law couldn’t be higher, but the right approach for courts should be familiar to anyone who has raised a toddler. Every parent eventually learns the importance of clear rules and logical consequences. In dealing with this Administration, the Justices should, too."

16 Apr 2025

The AmLaw 100 numbers for Big Law are out. No 1: Kirkland & Ellis, profits per partner $9.2 million, up 16%. You think they could have afforded to stand up to Donald Trump? (Spoiler: they caved, preemptively). No. 2: Latham & Watkins: ppp $7 million, up 23%. (Also caved.)

nytimes.comGrassley Draws Jeers From Constituents at Raucous Town HallThe Iowa Republican was pressed on President Trump’s policies, including the case of a Salvadoran immigrant who his administration has admitted it mistakenly sent to a prison in El Salvador.

16 Apr 2025

The people of Iowa--the American people--understand the danger posed by a government that illegally snatches people off the streets and sends them to a foreign prison without any court review. If it could happen to Kilmar Abrego Garcia it could happen to you. www.nytimes.com/2025/04/15/u...

newyorker.comWill the Supreme Court Stop Donald Trump?By defying the Justices’ ruling on a man mistakenly sent to El Salvador, the Administration has shown that it is not owed the deference typically shown to the executive branch.

15 Apr 2025

Will the Supreme Court let Trump play it for a fool? My latest for the New Yorker on the administration’s defiance, and the threat of judicial ostriches. www.newyorker.com/news/the-led...

4 Apr 2025

Has Trump’s Legal Strategy Backfired? Treating federal judges like junior associates at law firms, ignoring court orders, making preposterous legal arguments—these may win with the base, but in court? Not so much. My latest, for New Yorker

executivefunctions.substack.comThe Senate and the Edward Martin NominationThe case for non-confirmation

3 Apr 2025

HLS prof, Bush 43 DOJ alum Jack Goldsmith calls Ed Martin, Trump's nominee to be US Atty for DC, "the most openly politicizing and weaponizing figure in the most politicized and weaponizing department in our history." executivefunctions.substack.com/p/the-senate...

Judge Ho agreed to dismiss the Eric Adams prosecution, but he also laid into the DOJ rationale for doing so. He said there was "no evidence--zero" prosecutors had "improper motives" in bringing the case. He said the idea that the case was brought too close to an election "lacks any support."

"dismissal of the indictment in exchange for immigration policy concessions." Ho says DOJ's assertion it has "virtually unreviewable" license to dismiss cases "is fundamentally incompatible with the basic promise of equal justice under law." So DOJ gets to do what it wants, but it is tainted.

"All of this suggests that the 'appearances of impropriety' rational is not just thin, but pretextual," Ho said. As for the idea that facing trial would distract Adams from dealing with immigration, "similarly unsubstatiated." Ho: "Everything here smacks of a bargain: dismissal of the Indictment...

newyorker.comThe Makeup Artist Donald Trump Deported Under the Alien Enemies ActThe President has invoked the law to send Venezuelans to prison in El Salvador without due process—and, in many cases, under false pretenses.

Anyone who believes that the Trump administration had a serious basis for believing that all the Venezuelans it sent to El Salvador were gang members should read this horrifying story by Jonathan Blitzer in the New Yorker. www.newyorker.com/news/annals-...

I'm glad Susan Crawford won the Wisconsin Supreme Court race and glad Elon Musk didn't succeed in buying the seat. But no one should feel good about a state supreme court race that cost $100 million. (Musk spent $25 million.) That's obscene.

1 Apr 2025

Colin Powell used the Pottery Barn rule--if you break it you own it. This adminstration breaks everything and owns nothing. It admits has wrongfully deported a Salvadoran man and claims it cannot get him back. Is the United States, is President Trump, so powerless?

washingtonpost.comTrump administration says it mistakenly deported Salvadoran migrantThe government blamed “an administrative error” for the accidental deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran immigrant married to a U.S. citizen. Officials claim they’re unable to return him t...

1 Apr 2025

This is beyond horrifying. The U.S. government admits it improprly deported an El Salvadoran man who fled gang violence there. It now says it can't secure his return to U.S., where he has a wife and children. What kind of country are we living in? www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/...

28 Mar 2025

Lawyers, Big Law firms--you have a choice. Will you be Paul Weiss and Skadden, or will you be Jenner and WilmerHale. Appease Trump or fight his flagrantly unconstitutional orders. Partners, what will you tell your children?

newyorker.comHow Donald Trump Throttled Big LawThe President has two goals: to seek revenge and to intimidate lawyers challenging his agenda. Is a top firm’s deal with him a necessary act of survival or a damaging blow to the entire profession?

I wrote this for the New Yorker about Donald Trump’s reign of terror against Big Law. Now he has gone after WilmerHale. www.newyorker.com/news/the-led...

WilmerHale is the latest target of Trump’s campaign of terror against law firms. He rails about Wilmer partner Bob Mueller, without mentioning that his deputy attorney general asked Mueller to be special counsel.

And he complains that Wilmer “engages in obvious partisan representations to achieve political ends” without mentioning that its clients included Jared and Ivanka at the beginning of Trump 1. Where will this end?

Paul Weiss, I predict, won’t be the last of the Big Law firms to settle with Donald Trump rather than fight his blatantly unconstitutional executive orders. I wrote about what happened for The New Yorker. How Donald Trump Throttled Big Law

I am having technical difficulties adding the link; apologies for that.

19 Mar 2025

And by the way, defying court orders and going after a judge Boasberg of all people, is not just deranged—it’s bad lawyering. They are hurting their cases, plural, and chances w SCOTUS

newyorker.comThe Trump Administration Nears Open Defiance of the CourtsIn its conflict with a federal judge, the Justice Department claims to be complying with his orders while provoking a constitutional crisis.

19 Mar 2025

www.newyorker.com/news/the-led... Are we in a constitutional crisis? Sure feels that way. I wrote for The New Yorker, and fixed Karoline Leavitt’s quote for her.

16 Mar 2025

Thinking today of all the fine journalists at Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and elsewhere who can no longer do their excellent and indispensable work.

15 Mar 2025

The White House has gone after another leading law firm. This time Paul Weiss. I cannot overstate how dangerous this is—and how urgent for the private bar to respond with solidarity to this assault on the legal profession and rule of law.