AYESHA RASCOE, HOST:
We're bobbing in a flood of Supreme Court decisions, six last week alone, with lots more to come as the court continues to weigh in on President Trump's many executive orders. There are huge stakes for the future of his administration and the country. Leah Litman teaches law at the University of Michigan. She's also a host of the "Strict Scrutiny" podcast and author of the just-released book, "Lawless." Leah Litman joins us now. Good morning.
LEAH LITMAN: Good morning.
RASCOE: So before we get into the High Court, I want to ask you about Los Angeles. President Trump says he's deploying National Guard troops. His adviser, Stephen Miller, is calling demonstrations against the immigration sweeps there an insurrection, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is threatening to mobilize active-duty Marines from Camp Pendleton. But there's a big difference between nationalizing California guardsmen and what Hegseth is talking about, right?
LITMAN: Yes, that's exactly right. So nationalizing the guardsmen doesn't actually give the guardsmen additional substantive authority. It just allows them to basically protect those law enforcement officers, in particular, ICE and DHS officers who are already deploying and enforcing federal law there.
RASCOE: And so what would - what is Hegseth talking about when he says he'll mobilize active-duty Marines? Is that allowed?
LITMAN: Honestly, it's very hard to tell what legal authority they might possibly be gesturing toward. You cannot just deploy the military against civilians or use the military to enforce federal law. It's possible that they are gesturing toward the Insurrection Act, but it's hard to know exactly what they are contemplating. Right now, it seems like it's a combination of threats and a combination of them trying to create circumstances and an emergency that would justify their using additional force and legal authority.
RASCOE: OK. Well, let's move on to the Supreme Court decisions. Last week, there were decisions on guns, employment discrimination and a tax exemption that was denied to a Catholic charity. What stood out to you?
LITMAN: I think that these decisions, which were unanimous and several of which were written by Democratic appointees, were significant because the Democratic appointees found common ground with the Republican appointees to stave off more significant rulings. So they tried to reach narrow decisions that wouldn't change the law as much as some of the Republican appointees or some of the litigants wanted the court to do.
RASCOE: Well, what does that tell you about the court? Because, I mean, the - as we know, I mean, the liberal justices have - they don't have the majority. They don't have that much power. So there have to be some conservatives that are willing to go along with this, right?
LITMAN: Yes, but I hesitate to draw too much of a conclusion just yet about what this says about the Supreme Court in general until the next spate of rulings come down. We're still waiting on more than 20 decisions in argued cases. Oftentimes, the decisions that break down along traditional ideological lines and make the most significant changes to the law don't come until the end of June. And you add to that the shadow docket decisions that the Supreme Court has been issuing, which have divided along ideological lines and allowed President Trump to do a lot of what he's been trying to do. And I don't think that the decisions last week suggest the court is moving slowly or more united than people might think it is from the more divided decisions.
RASCOE: Well, talk to me about this because a number of Trump's recent executive orders are stalled by lawsuits, and they stand before the court, and the Supreme Court will have to make decisions on presidential power. On Friday, the court allowed members of the DOGE team to access Social Security records. So given that ruling, what will you be watching for as the court continues to make decisions about executive power and Trump's power?
LITMAN: I think what I will be watching for is the extent to which the court allows Donald Trump to implement some policies that are truly difficult, if not impossible, to roll back. I think allowing DOGE, the Department of Governmental Efficiency, access to the Social Security information is one of those important decisions where once you give them access to that data, there isn't much courts can do to actually roll it back in the event that they conclude DOGE's actions are unlawful. So I will be watching to see the extent to which the Republican justices allow Donald Trump to do things that will be impossible to wind the clock back on.
RASCOE: In the 30 seconds we have left, do you have thoughts on the new travel ban from Trump and the legal ramifications there?
LITMAN: I think the new travel ban is just like the previous iterations of the travel ban. It is trying to conceal animus under the facade of national security. The fact that the Supreme Court allowed Donald Trump to get away with it in the First Trump administration is an indication that he was going to try again, and they'll let him do it.
RASCOE: That's University of Michigan law scholar Leah Litman. Thank you for speaking with us.
LITMAN: Thanks for having me. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
