Jesse Weber, managing partner at Brown Goldstein and Levy, is a litigator focused on securing equal access for people with disabilities. In this discussion, she dives into the implications of the Supreme Court's ruling on Gilmar Abrego Garcia's wrongful deportation and its relationship with executive power. Jesse also addresses the ethical dilemmas law firms face under political pressure, emphasizing the critical role of integrity in law and the necessity for attorneys to engage in pro bono work to champion social justice.
The Supreme Court's ruling in Abrego-Garcia's case illustrates the tension between judicial authority and executive branch overreach.
Lawyers are urged to actively oppose the erosion of democratic values rather than remaining silent amidst political pressures.
There is a critical need for law schools to instill ethical responsibilities in future attorneys to uphold justice and constitutional rights.
Deep dives
The Case of Gilmar Abrego-Gracia
The Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Gilmar Abrego-Gracia highlighted the complexities surrounding administrative errors in deportation cases. Abrego-Garcia, wrongfully arrested and sent to a prison in El Salvador despite having a court order preventing his deportation, prompted a legal battle over the government's obligations. The Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to take action towards facilitating his return to the U.S., asserting that the government cannot completely ignore court orders under the guise of foreign affairs. However, the ruling left uncertainty as to the extent of the government's obligation to effectuate Abrego-Garcia's return, drawing criticism for its vagueness.
The Role of Attorneys Amid Political Pressures
As the legal profession faces mounting pressures in a politically charged environment, attorneys are grappling with their responsibilities in upholding constitutional values. Many lawyers feel compelled to remain neutral or silent, while others seek to challenge the erosion of democratic principles through their work. The episode emphasizes the importance of a unified voice within the legal community to advocate for the rule of law, highlighting concerns over the consequences of legal firms capitulating to the administration's agenda. Serving clients, particularly those who are marginalized, remains a critical role for attorneys during this tumultuous time.
The Implications of Law Firm Decisions
The episode underscores the implications of major law firms choosing to engage in pro bono work aligned with the Trump administration's agenda. Law firms that previously championed civil rights may now find themselves inadvertently supporting policies that contradict their core values. This shift raises alarms regarding the future of public interest law and access to justice for vulnerable populations, suggesting a potential chilling effect on attorneys willing to take a stand. Law professionals are encouraged to consider their ethical obligations and the long-term consequences of acquiescing to political pressures.
The Urgency of Legal Action and Advocacy
In the current political landscape, there is an urgent need for lawyers to engage in advocacy and action on pressing legal issues affecting marginalized communities. The episode highlights various active legal battles, such as cases surrounding voting rights, civil rights, and protections for transgender individuals in prison. Law professionals are called to contribute their expertise to these causes, emphasizing that the fight for justice and constitutional rights is ongoing and critical. The conversation reflects a growing recognition that silence or inaction by attorneys in this moment could have dire consequences for the rule of law.
The Responsibility of Law Schools and Future Lawyers
The episode addresses the role of law schools and the responsibilities of future legal professionals in shaping the legal landscape. As students witness the ethical dilemmas faced by practicing lawyers, there is a call for legal education to instill a sense of moral courage and commitment to justice in upcoming attorneys. The proactive stance of young lawyers and law students may influence larger firms to reconsider their positions in light of public interest and advocacy. By fostering a generation of lawyers dedicated to defending constitutional principles, the legal profession can better respond to the challenges presented by political and societal upheaval.
On this week’s Amicus, autocratic creep in high and low gear. In high gear: The Supreme Court finally issued its order in Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s case, requiring that the government “facilitates” Abrego Garcia’s return from the El Salvadoran prison to which he was illegally and accidentally reditioned, but also recognizing the limits on its authority to direct the executive branch. Dahlia Lithwick talks to Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern about the ways in which the High Court’s attempts to avoid a showdown with the Trump administration may be futile.
Next, Dahlia turns to the autocratic creep in low gear that is President Trump’s buyout of Big Law. Jessie Weber, managing partner at Brown Goldstein and Levy, shares her view from a firm that has no intention of capitulating government bullying.
Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.
