Ankush Khardori: “There is extraordinarily little support for the idea that the president could simply disregard orders from the courts. That is true across the public… I also found similar responses from an informal survey of conservative legal thinkers.”

Tom Nichols: “President Donald Trump is at war with the rule of law in the United States. His assault is already the most hostile and sustained political attack on America’s legal and law-enforcement institutions since the Civil War. It is a war he declared before he began his first term, and one he pursued with tenacity once in office. It even had its own call to arms on January 6, 2021, or so many of his supporters believed.”

“Exiled temporarily from the White House, Trump spent four years vowing to continue this war if he were reelected, and he has made good on that promise, targeting the foundations of almost every institution of law and justice within his reach as the chief executive.”

“President Donald Trump has ramped up his fight with the judiciary as he racks up losses in court over his administration’s efforts to reshape the US government and its approach on everything from immigration to federal spending,” Bloomberg reports.

“Two months into his term, Trump is already fighting more than 150 lawsuits challenging his executive actions, based on a Bloomberg News review of filings in federal courts. Judges across the US are frequently ruling against the administration and in some cases signaling the president may have exceeded his power to act without the approval of Congress.”

“A federal judge in Washington expressed skepticism on Friday about the Trump administration’s policy of using a powerful and rarely invoked wartime statute to summarily deport immigrants from the country,” the New York Times reports.

“The judge, James Boasberg, suggested at an hourlong hearing that the White House had stretched the meaning of the statute, the Alien Enemies Act, by applying it to scores of Venezuelan immigrants. The administration accused those immigrants of being members of a violent street gang and flew them to El Salvador last weekend with little or no due process.”

Wall Street Journal: Judge raises concerns about Trump’s use of wartime powers for deportations.

CNN: Boasberg says Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act has ‘frightening’ implications.

Politico: “Justice Department lawyers say the ruling by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, an appointee of President Barack Obama, is jeopardizing Trump’s agenda, usurping his authority, damaging relationships with international allies, shattering the separation of powers and endangering the American people.”

“But a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals took no action on the Trump administration’s invitation to immediately strip the case from Boasberg and to lift his initial restraining order, which he issued in part to scrutinize whether Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act passed legal muster.”

“Instead, the panel, which includes appointees of President George H.W. Bush, Obama and Trump himself, set a hearing for Monday afternoon — a notable slow-walk, when the administration has described each passing hour as a mounting threat to Trump’s authority.”

“In fact, the D.C. Circuit’s approach is in line with appeals courts across the country, which have largely rejected Trump’s view of a growing separation-of-powers emergency requiring them to step in urgently and stop lower-court rulings Trump doesn’t like. “

“Weeks before President Donald Trump called for the impeachment of a federal judge who ruled against his agenda, his supporters around the nation seeded the ground to turn public opinion against the institution that has been the leading check on his administration,” the Washington Post reports.

CNN: “Even before President Donald Trump retook office, his advisers expected that his executive orders and other policy moves would face immediate legal challenges. It was expected that those challenges would be filed in districts that were friendly to challengers and would result in initial losses for the administration…”

“But the Trump legal strategy has always been a long game designed to get these questions before the conservative supermajority at the Supreme Court where his lawyers believe Trump will prevail in his expansive use of executive power. A recent string of court losses has not deterred the administration from continuing to pursue this strategy.”

Washington Post: More than a dozen judges have said Trump and Co. probably broke the law.

“President Trump’s angry call on Tuesday for the impeachment of a federal judge who ruled against his administration on deportation flights has set off a string of near-instant social media taunts and threats, including images of judges being marched off in handcuffs,” the New York Times reports.

“President Trump early Wednesday renewed his attacks on a federal judge who ordered the administration to turn around flights carrying alleged Venezuelan gang members, despite pushback from the chief justice of the Supreme Court,” The Hill reports.

Said Trump: “If a President doesn’t have the right to throw murderers, and other criminals, out of our Country because a Radical Left Lunatic Judge wants to assume the role of President, then our Country is in very big trouble, and destined to fail!”

“Once again, it comes down to John Roberts and Donald Trump,” CNN reports.

“It was Chief Justice Roberts, of course, who wrote last year’s Supreme Court decision giving then-candidate Trump substantial immunity from criminal prosecution. But in recent weeks, it also was Roberts who steered the court in its calibrated approach to litigation arising from President Trump’s orders overhauling government – refusing to give administration lawyers the quick endorsement they sought.”

David Graham: What John Roberts’ rebuke of Trump left out.

“Chief Justice John Roberts said the impeachment of federal judges is ‘not an appropriate response’ to disagreement with their rulings,” Bloomberg reports.

“The extraordinary statement from the leader of the Supreme Court comes hours after President Trump called for the impeachment of a judge who tried to pause the deportation of hundreds of alleged Venezuelan gang members.”

Said Roberts: “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”