

The Last Line of Defense: The Courts vs. Trump
10 snips May 16, 2025
Mark Lemley, the director of Stanford's law program, discusses his lawsuit against DOGE for violating the Privacy Act. He warns of the dangerous concentration of power within the executive branch and highlights the fragile role of the courts as defenders of constitutional rights. Shawn Musgrave elaborates on the legal battles against the Trump administration, focusing on the erosion of due process and the troubling shift in loyalty within the Justice Department. Together, they emphasize the importance of resilience in the face of ongoing governmental overreach.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Courts as Constitutional Check
- Courts have so far acted as a strong constitutional check against illegal executive actions.
- Judges write detailed, rigorous opinions and are increasingly less deferential to government claims.
Grassroots Origin of DOGE Lawsuit
- Mark Lemley posted on Blue Sky about possible Privacy Act violations by DOGE at OPM.
- He received thousands of messages from federal employees eager to join a legal challenge, catalyzing the lawsuit.
DOGE's Schrodinger Status
- DOGE agency status fluctuates strategically to avoid legal accountability.
- This inconsistency complicates lawsuits and signals manipulation of bureaucratic definitions.