Jess Bravin

Well, they want courts to stay out of their way. I mean, their messaging, we don't know what kind of subliminal or psychological effect, but this is a very, very combative administration. I mean, their rhetoric is not, we respectfully disagree with the court and intend to appeal. Their rhetoric is this judge is a lunatic and should be impeached.

So they are sending a message to the courts that, you know, stay out of our way, just as they've done to other opponents. They don't seem to have a concept of a loyal opposition. You know, any opposition is by definition disloyal, I think, in their view. So, yeah, there's that. Now, that's the general, I think, atmosphere that they want to promote.

So they are sending a message to the courts that, you know, stay out of our way, just as they've done to other opponents. They don't seem to have a concept of a loyal opposition. You know, any opposition is by definition disloyal, I think, in their view. So, yeah, there's that. Now, that's the general, I think, atmosphere that they want to promote.

So they are sending a message to the courts that, you know, stay out of our way, just as they've done to other opponents. They don't seem to have a concept of a loyal opposition. You know, any opposition is by definition disloyal, I think, in their view. So, yeah, there's that. Now, that's the general, I think, atmosphere that they want to promote.

In terms of their legal objectives, they have a very, very strong view of executive power. They know that several members of the Supreme Court share that view, at least in theory, about how the separation of powers should be interpreted. And they are hoping that the cases that inevitably are arising from many of their very aggressive assertions

In terms of their legal objectives, they have a very, very strong view of executive power. They know that several members of the Supreme Court share that view, at least in theory, about how the separation of powers should be interpreted. And they are hoping that the cases that inevitably are arising from many of their very aggressive assertions

In terms of their legal objectives, they have a very, very strong view of executive power. They know that several members of the Supreme Court share that view, at least in theory, about how the separation of powers should be interpreted. And they are hoping that the cases that inevitably are arising from many of their very aggressive assertions

will lead to new precedents that bless their approach to running the government. So yes, I think that's their legal objective, and I think they're likely to win on some of their arguments. I can't say they're going to win on all of them, but some of them, I think they have a very good chance of prevailing.

will lead to new precedents that bless their approach to running the government. So yes, I think that's their legal objective, and I think they're likely to win on some of their arguments. I can't say they're going to win on all of them, but some of them, I think they have a very good chance of prevailing.

will lead to new precedents that bless their approach to running the government. So yes, I think that's their legal objective, and I think they're likely to win on some of their arguments. I can't say they're going to win on all of them, but some of them, I think they have a very good chance of prevailing.

There certainly is. And the Supreme Court itself has raised questions about the propriety of nationwide injunctions. It is a good question, and it is one that could be resolved in a couple of ways. One, the Supreme Court itself can set out new guidelines for when those kinds of injunctions are appropriate, and also Congress can.

There certainly is. And the Supreme Court itself has raised questions about the propriety of nationwide injunctions. It is a good question, and it is one that could be resolved in a couple of ways. One, the Supreme Court itself can set out new guidelines for when those kinds of injunctions are appropriate, and also Congress can.

There certainly is. And the Supreme Court itself has raised questions about the propriety of nationwide injunctions. It is a good question, and it is one that could be resolved in a couple of ways. One, the Supreme Court itself can set out new guidelines for when those kinds of injunctions are appropriate, and also Congress can.

Congress can set the rules for federal courts, and I think there is some talk of doing that. There is a serious legal question about should a single judge, often picked because the parties who are filing the lawsuit think that judge will be sympathetic, be able to stymie an entire initiative of the government.

Congress can set the rules for federal courts, and I think there is some talk of doing that. There is a serious legal question about should a single judge, often picked because the parties who are filing the lawsuit think that judge will be sympathetic, be able to stymie an entire initiative of the government.

Congress can set the rules for federal courts, and I think there is some talk of doing that. There is a serious legal question about should a single judge, often picked because the parties who are filing the lawsuit think that judge will be sympathetic, be able to stymie an entire initiative of the government.

Well, I think the answer is, of course, it depends. I mean, is it a kind of soft noncompliance, which actually is not that unusual? I mean, you know, there are a lot of court orders that don't get fully carried out by the government, you know, all the time. And courts don't have a perfect way of assessing whether that goes on.

Well, I think the answer is, of course, it depends. I mean, is it a kind of soft noncompliance, which actually is not that unusual? I mean, you know, there are a lot of court orders that don't get fully carried out by the government, you know, all the time. And courts don't have a perfect way of assessing whether that goes on.

Well, I think the answer is, of course, it depends. I mean, is it a kind of soft noncompliance, which actually is not that unusual? I mean, you know, there are a lot of court orders that don't get fully carried out by the government, you know, all the time. And courts don't have a perfect way of assessing whether that goes on.

Or is it just, you know, a flat-out defiance of a Supreme Court directive? As you said, the president has not gone that far at this point. Some of his nominees, though, left open the possibility that there were circumstances when they wouldn't have to comply with a court order.