A good week as the resistance bends the arc toward justice
May 17, 2025
[Reminder: I will hold a Substack Livestream on Saturday, May 17, at Noon Eastern / 9:00 a.m. Pacific. Open to everyone on the Substack App on your phone or tablet.]
Friday brought two significant victories for those resisting Trump: Republicans were unable to move the budget bill out of a House committee they control, and the Supreme Court issued a permanent stay against the use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to remove immigrants to foreign prisons.
Both outcomes should have happened in the absence of nationwide protests. The proposed budget is an abomination, and the removal of immigrants under the AEA is an open wound on the Constitution. But Trump’s juggernaut will not slow or stop until it collides with the irresistible force of the people’s will.
Members of Congress and Justices on the Supreme Court have witnessed ongoing nationwide protests, raucous town halls, and a mobilized grassroots base that is gaining strength every day.
The persistence, strength, and scale of the resistance create the ether in which members of Congress and the Supreme Court make their decisions. While the media may portray congressional proceedings and Supreme Court decisions as free-floating, isolated phenomena that exist beyond the realm of street-level politics, that notion is preposterous.
Justices and members of Congress are human beings and citizens of our nation; they know that Trump is widely perceived as a lawless and vengeful president seeking to evade and erode the rule of law. Members of Congress are looking over their shoulders as they approach the midterms, and Justices of the Supreme Court can see the judgment of history in today’s headlines and editorials.
To the extent that Congress and the Supreme Court have begun to resist the worst excesses of Trump's lawless second term, it is because of you. Every American who has raised their voice in protest and outrage has made a difference. Collectively, the voices of the people are being heard in the halls of Congress and the chambers of the Supreme Court.
We are shaping the course of history. We are bending the arc through our collective effort. It isn’t any more complicated than that.
And the lesson at the end of a good week is that we must redouble our efforts, increase our volume, and encourage our neighbors and friends to join us.
Republicans fail to advance bill out of the House Budget Committee
On Friday, the House Budget Committee refused to advance the “big beautiful” budget bill created at the behest of Donald Trump and hand-carried by waterboy Mike Johnson. The bill failed on a vote of 16 to 21, with four Republicans joining Democrats in refusing to advance the bill.
The story is being misreported either as:
A “revolt” by hardliners in the GOP for even more draconian cuts to Medicaid, healthcare, and SNAP, or
A “test” of Speaker Mike Johnson’s ability to placate warring factions.
While both of those descriptions are true, they are true in the same sense that saying victims in an airplane crash died because the plane hit the ground at a high rate of speed. That description says nothing about why the plane crashed—an explanation that describes the proximate cause of the deaths, not merely the final second of the crash.
In the losing vote in the House Budget Committee, the “revolt” by hardliners and the “test” of Johnson’s power were both traceable to the same proximate cause: House Republicans had previously withdrawn the most draconian proposed cuts to Medicaid and healthcare because of nationwide protests and “empty chair” town halls!
I wrote about the success of the resistance in paring back the most extreme version of Trump's “big beautiful bill” in my newsletter on May 8, Unseen victories of the resistance, as follows:
The bottom line is that Republican leadership quietly abandoned plans to cut Medicaid because GOP members of Congress were lambasted at town halls by constituents who expressed their displeasure over Medicaid cuts to pay for tax reductions for billionaires and corporations.
“Moderate” Republicans heard the message and feared they would lose in 2026, so they withdrew their support. That, in turn, prompted a “revolt” among right-wing deficit hawks who want even deeper cuts to pay for the tax reductions for billionaires.
So, because the grassroots resistance caused Republicans to withdraw the most extreme cuts to Medicaid, hardliners “revolted” against a bill they believed was not cruel enough.
What happens next? That is difficult to predict, but grassroots activists are shaping the narrative. If Mike Johnson relents and revises the bill to attract Democratic support, that outcome will likely benefit tens of millions of Americans. If Mike Johnson increases the cruelty of the cuts, that outcome will make Republicans more vulnerable in 2026.
Either way, the immovable force that is shaping policy is not being acknowledged. That’s okay. Grassroots activists are not seeking glory or recognition. They are defending democracy and the health and safety of their fellow Americans because it is the right thing to do.
Good work, everyone! Keep it up—and be ready for the next round! It will likely happen on Sunday evening or Monday. Whatever the outcome, we must continue to bend the arc toward justice and fairness. We will win. It is only a matter of time!
The Supreme Court halts deportations under the Alien Enemies Act indefinitely
In a rebuke to the Trump administration, the Fifth Circuit, and a district court judge in Texas, the Supreme Court stayed deportations under the Alien Enemies Act indefinitely. See US Supreme Court maintains block on Trump deportations under wartime law | Reuters.
The opinion is here: A.A.R.P. v. Trump | May 16, 2025.
The opinion was issued “per curiam”—meaning “by the court”—indicating that seven justices joined in the opinion without qualification. Only Alito and Thomas dissented.
Before discussing the merits, let’s talk about the most important aspect of the opinion: It represents another step in the increasing pushback by the Court against Trump. As with the failed vote in the House Budget Committee, the ruling by the Court tracks the growing protests against Trump's lawless application of the AEA to deport migrants without due process.
Would the Court have reached the same conclusion without the nationwide protests? It should have, but the reactionary majority has failed to do many things it “should” have done. Coming on the heels of the brutal questioning of Trump's Solicitor General in the birthright citizenship hearing on Thursday, the seven-justice “per curiam” opinion on Friday sent a strong message to Trump.
As usual, others have delivered excellent commentary that I will not repeat. See Chris Geidner, Law Dork, Breaking: SCOTUS, in a 7-2 vote, blocks AEA removals from northern Texas during litigation. Geidner addresses some of the more technical aspects of the opinion that I will omit for the sake of brevity.
To my eye, there were three points that should give us hope that a clear majority of the Court has finally heeded the will of the people.
First, the Court went out of its way to repeat its prior ruling in the case initially heard by Judge Boasberg involving the 200 Venezuelans deported to a prison in El Salvador. You will recall that the Trump administration lost that case 9-0 on the question of whether the administration provided sufficient due process. But, commenting on the related Abrego Garcia case, Stephen Miller claimed that the administration “won” the case by a 9-0. See Reason, Stephen Miller egregiously misrepresented a SCOTUS order while Trump nodded along.
The Court’s per curiam opinion on Friday removed all doubt about the meaning and effect of its prior rulings, stating:
Accordingly, in J. G. G., this Court explained—with all nine Justices agreeing—that “AEA detainees must receive notice . . . that they are subject to removal under the Act . . . within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief ” before removal.
The above passage seems to be directed to Stephen Miller in particular, who attempted to distort the Court’s holdings in a bad-faith manner. The Court seemed to be saying to Stephen Miller, “You know, don’t you, that we have televisions and can see and hear what you say to the press?” The justices are watching what is happening, including the nationwide protests.
Second, the Court flipped the script on Trump's claim that he is “unable” to secure the return of Abrego Garcia. The Court said that if the administration is “unable” to correct a mistaken deportation, then there is all the more reason to ensure that persons subject to deportation under the AEA receive sufficient due process to challenge their detention.
The Government has represented elsewhere that it is unable to provide for the return of an individual deported in error to a prison in El Salvador . . . under these circumstances, notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster.
Again, the Court seems to be saying to Trump, “We are watching you and listening to the batsh*t things you say on Fox News. We can and will hold those statements against you in court.”
Third, the Court delivered a smack-down to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for dismissing the underlying case without considering the merits. The Court effectively lectured the Fifth Circuit on the nature of a request for emergency relief and ordered the Fifth Circuit to address the following:
(1) all the normal preliminary injunction factors, including likelihood of success on the merits, as to the named plaintiffs’ underlying habeas claims that the AEA does not authorize their removal pursuant to the President’s March 14, 2025, Proclamation, and (2) the issue of what notice is due, as to the putative class’s due process claims against summary removal.
It is rare for the Court to issue such specific remedial instructions to a Court below. It may be that the Fifth Circuit will rule against the 200+ men deported to El Salvador on the merits, but it must do so in a detailed opinion that exposes its reasons to the harsh light of day.
In short, it seems like the Supreme Court is fed up and disgusted with the bad-faith gamesmanship of the Trump administration and politically motivated Trump judges.
The obvious references to televised statements by Stephen Miller and Trump suggest that the justices are keenly aware of what is happening “on the ground” in America. And a big part of what they are witnessing on the news is the collective righteous indignation of the American people. Once again, grassroots activists are bending the arc toward justice.
Concluding Thoughts
Every capitulation matters. So does every act of courage.
On Friday, the Trump administration began attacking former FBI Director James Comey, suggesting that he called for violence against Trump by posting a social media message with seashells that formed two numbers. See AP News, Comey interviewed by the Secret Service over '86 47' social media post.
Comey denies that his post called for violence, and Comey has renounced any violent interpretation of his post. But that will not stop the Trump administration from harassing, investigating, and possibly indicting Comey for posting an expression that is commonly seen on protest signs across America to signify the desire for Trump to be impeached and removed from office upon conviction in the Senate.
The reason Trump feels so free to target his political opponents is because he has been wildly successful in intimidating the most powerful law firms, corporations, universities, media outlets, and billionaires in the nation.
If all the institutions that had capitulated to Trump had stood up against him, he would not feel emboldened to harass an obviously law-abiding citizen over a post that expressed a message calling for political change, not violence.
In Friday’s Comment section, a reader asked for a list of the law firms that had capitulated to Trump. Those firms have fallen out of the news cycle, but their cowardice remains—and will do so every day until they renounce their capitulation to Trump.
Worse, those nine firms are home to some of the Democratic Party’s leaders and heroes. While those lawyers cannot be held personally responsible for the initial decision of their firms, they have a choice as to whether they remain at firms that have ceded their autonomy to Trump and rejected their commitment to promoting diversity in a profession with a long and shameful history of discrimination against women, LGBTQ people, and Jewish and Black Americans.
At some point, remaining at those firms constitutes assent to the shameful capitulation.
Here is the list I provided to the reader:
Paul Weiss (Loretta Lynch)
Skadden Arps
Kirkland & Ellis
Latham & Watkins
Willkie Farr (Doug Emhoff)
Cadwalader
A&O Shearman
Simpson Thatcher
Milbank (Neal Katyal)
Would it have made a difference to Trump's persecution of James Comey if those firms had stood up to Trump? I don’t know. I do know that their capitulation to Trump did not help dissuade him from persecuting his enemies, including Comey.
Every act of capitulation matters. Every act of courage matters.
The good news is that we get to decide which side of the ledger we will occupy. Let’s make the right choice—and set an example for others to follow!
Talk to you tomorrow!
Daily Dose of Perspective
Let's appreciate the irony of Trump considering Comey his enemy. It was Comey who helped elect Trump because of Comey's ill-timed release right before the 2016 election of allegations about Hillary Clinton while not disclosing the investigation about Trump's ties to Russia. Helping Trump has consequences.
I am thankful that once again, Robert, you pull off the balancing act of realistically portraying the problems we face while passionately celebrating the ways everyday people are making the crucial difference. To supplement your approach I’d like to offer these bits by Rebecca Solnit – because we can’t afford to be “democracy doomers” in the way many people are “climate doomers”:
“A lot of people in this society also like certainty, and while it’s obviously foolish to be certain we will win, somehow certainty we will lose isn’t subject to the same judgments. That certainty seems to come in part from an assumption that change happens in predictable ways, so we can know the future, or that there are environmental but not social and technological tipping points. … Change is often not linear but exponential, or it’s unpredictable, like an earthquake releasing centuries of tension. Big changes start small, and history is studded with surprises.
“I don’t know why so many people seem to think it’s their job to spread discouragement, but it seems to be a muddle about the relationship between facts and feelings. I keep saying I respect despair as an emotion, but not as an analysis. You can feel absolutely devastated about the situation and not assume this predicts outcome; you can have your feelings and can still chase down facts from reliable sources, and the facts tell us that…we have the solutions, that we know what to do, and that the obstacles are political; that when we fight we sometimes win; and that we are deciding the future now.
“I wonder sometimes if it’s because people assume you can’t be hopeful and heartbroken at the same time, and of course you can. In times when everything is fine, hope is unnecessary. Hope is not happiness or confidence or inner peace; it’s a commitment to search for possibilities. Feelings deserve full respect as feelings, but all they inform you about is you. History is full of people who continued to struggle in desperate and grim circumstances, and so is the news from Ukraine to the Philippines. Some lived to see those circumstances change because of that struggle. Maybe this is what Antonio Gramsci meant with his famous phrase ‘pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will'.”
(Source: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/26/we-cant-afford-to-be-climate-doomers )