Asha Rangappa

Thanks for having me, Ezra.

Thanks for having me, Ezra.

Well, I think this is why a lot of analysts are now saying we're officially in a constitutional crisis. So the normal recourse here would be to hold the administration in contempt. They can fine specific officials. If it were you and me and we were held in contempt, I mean, the ultimate penalty might be that we could be jailed.

Well, I think this is why a lot of analysts are now saying we're officially in a constitutional crisis. So the normal recourse here would be to hold the administration in contempt. They can fine specific officials. If it were you and me and we were held in contempt, I mean, the ultimate penalty might be that we could be jailed.

But I doubt that that's something that would ultimately happen to anyone in the administration. But that would be within the power of the court as well.

But I doubt that that's something that would ultimately happen to anyone in the administration. But that would be within the power of the court as well.

And ultimately, the executive branch has the enforcement power. Trump maintains control over all of the enforcement agencies, including the Marshals Service. And so even if this goes all the way back up to the Supreme Court and you then have this face-off between the judiciary and the executive branch, it's not clear to me exactly why.

And ultimately, the executive branch has the enforcement power. Trump maintains control over all of the enforcement agencies, including the Marshals Service. And so even if this goes all the way back up to the Supreme Court and you then have this face-off between the judiciary and the executive branch, it's not clear to me exactly why.

What can be done to enforce an order ultimately, which kind of leaves the Trump administration with a trump card, no pun intended.

What can be done to enforce an order ultimately, which kind of leaves the Trump administration with a trump card, no pun intended.

Well, first, Stephen Miller's interpretation of what the Supreme Court said is not entirely accurate. The Supreme Court did mention the deference that's given to the executive branch in foreign affairs, but it did uphold the lower court's order saying, that the administration facilitate the return.

Well, first, Stephen Miller's interpretation of what the Supreme Court said is not entirely accurate. The Supreme Court did mention the deference that's given to the executive branch in foreign affairs, but it did uphold the lower court's order saying, that the administration facilitate the return.

They can't tell him what to do in terms of the negotiations and the dealings with the foreign power, but they need to do everything in their power to make it easier for this person to return. But I think to zoom out, this is by design.

They can't tell him what to do in terms of the negotiations and the dealings with the foreign power, but they need to do everything in their power to make it easier for this person to return. But I think to zoom out, this is by design.

In all of these contexts, whether it's in these deportations, whether it's in the visa revocations, whether it's even in the tariff context, you hear these buzzwords, foreign affairs, terrorism, national security, national emergency. All of these are arenas that are core executive branch authorities that are given great deference by the courts.

In all of these contexts, whether it's in these deportations, whether it's in the visa revocations, whether it's even in the tariff context, you hear these buzzwords, foreign affairs, terrorism, national security, national emergency. All of these are arenas that are core executive branch authorities that are given great deference by the courts.

And so when they frame all of these issues in those terms, they're already carving out A huge swath of authority that they can essentially exercise without much oversight. And when you layer the court's absolute immunity ruling from last year on top of that, which, again, protects these core functions from any kind of liability issue.

And so when they frame all of these issues in those terms, they're already carving out A huge swath of authority that they can essentially exercise without much oversight. And when you layer the court's absolute immunity ruling from last year on top of that, which, again, protects these core functions from any kind of liability issue.

There is a large arena in which they can act with impunity if they can move fast enough, as they are in this case.

There is a large arena in which they can act with impunity if they can move fast enough, as they are in this case.