The center begins to hold.

April 17, 2025

Wednesday brought many encouraging stories that suggest the resistance of “we the people” is beginning to be heard by institutions critical to the defense of democracy. Grassroots activists and concerned citizens deserve credit for the upwelling of institutional courage. See Concluding Thoughts for further discussion of the importance of mass protests in stopping the unlawful rampage by Trump, DOGE, and his co-conspirators.

The positive developments are coming from all directions, so my goal in this newsletter is to distill and organize those stories to identify the “signal in the noise.” Where possible, I cite original source documents for further reading.

With that throat clearing out of the way, let’s look at the central theme of the day: The center begins to hold.

[Let me quickly address one business item to prevent confusion. The readers who followed me to Substack from Constant Contact in 2017 and became paying subscribers at that time will begin the auto-renew process on Thursday, April 17. This newsletter is called “Today’s Edition,” and the author is me,—“Robert Hubbell” or “R. Hubbell.” Hopefully, that information will help you identify the auto-renewal. Thanks for eight years of loyalty, solidarity, and support!]

---

The Center Begins to Hold

The courts push back. US District Judge James Boasberg issued an opinion finding “probable cause” that the administration committed criminal contempt in “wilfully and gleefully” violating his order to return Venezuelan migrants in the process of being transported to El Salvador. Judge Boasberg gave the administration a final opportunity to comply or face a contempt proceeding to identify administration officials who instructed subordinates to disobey Boasberg’s order.

Possible subjects of criminal contempt are Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Attorney General Pam Bondi. See further discussion below.

Harvard University’s courageous stand is gaining momentum. Harvard’s principled decision to oppose Trump’s demand to capitulate is sparking a resistance movement among American universities and colleges. Six of eight universities in the Ivy League and one university in the Big Ten have agreed to a mutual defense pact that will result in mutual aid if they are attacked by Trump.

Separately, the IRS announced Wednesday evening that it will seek to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status following Trump’s public suggestion that the IRS do so to punish Harvard, an action expressly prohibited by statute. We should add the use of the IRS for political purposes to the list of impeachment articles to be issued in the 120th Congress, when Democrats regain control of the House.

See WSJ Editorial Board, Donald Trump Tries to Run Harvard, subheader: Many of his demands on the school exceed his power under the Constitution. "(“The Trump Administration nonetheless demanded last week that Harvard accede to what is effectively a federal receivership under threat of losing $9 billion.”)

California sues Trump to enjoin tariffs. California is the world’s fifth-largest economy and is the nation’s largest agricultural producer and manufacturer. It is uniquely and disproportionately exposed to Trump’s illegal tariffs. On Wednesday, California filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of California to enjoin the tariffs illegally imposed by Trump. The complaint is here: California v. Trump.

I encourage you to read the first two pages and pages 12-16 of the complaint. You will quickly understand that Trump’s tariffs are unlawful and, even if lawful, were imposed without the appropriate consultation with Congress. The court should grant California a temporary restraining order, at which point the legality of the tariffs and Trump’s lack of authority will be determined by the Supreme Court.

Five law professors come to the aid of law firms targeted by Trump. Five preeminent law professors from Boston University, Cornell, and Georgetown, all of whom are experts in ethics, have filed a brief in support of Wilmer Hale (one of the Trump targets that refused to capitulate). All I can say is, “Shut the front door! Do not provoke ethics experts.” Joyce Vance (of Civil Discourse on Substack) ably summarizes the arguments made by the five law professors.

In short, the capitulating law firms face ethical conflicts whenever they represent a client in a case involving the government. Worse, as summarized by Joyce Vance, “Those firms may have violated federal anti-bribery laws. “[T]he law firms may fall within what counts as bribery under federal law: offering or promising something of value to a federal official in hopes of influencing an official act—here, withdrawing the executive orders against the firms.”

It appears the Capitulating Firms did not carefully consider the ramifications (or legality) of giving Trump a political victory in exchange for forestalling official government action. This story is discussed in a bit more detail below.

Senator Van Hollen attempts to visit Kilmar Abrego Garcia in El Salvadoran prison. Maryland Senator Van Hollen flew to El Salvador in an effort to meet with Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident who was mistakenly and illegally deported to El Salvador. Although the trip was unsuccessful in meeting with Abrego Garcia, Senator Van Hollen’s protest action is precisely the high-pressure, counter-narrative tactic that US Senators should be using every day!

Senator Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez continue to draw huge crowds in red congressional districts. Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have gone into the lion’s den of red congressional districts in California’s Central Valley, Idaho, and Denver, where they have drawn crowds from 12,000 to 36,000. And in each of those districts, the cowardly Republican representatives remain in hiding from their constituents.

Some pundits are mistakenly judging the “success” of the rallies on the basis of whether the appearances will “flip” the red districts in 2026. That type of narrow, “inside baseball,” “horse-race” analysis is why pundits are affirmatively harmful to the effort to defend democracy. Bernie and AOC are taking control of the news cycle by doing something! That’s the story that pundits are overlooking by reducing everything to their “Please hire me as a consultant” analysis of politics.

Senator Adam Schiff’s “hold” on Ed Martin’s nomination is more prescient than planned. Senator Adam Schiff placed an indefinite “hold” on the nomination of Ed Martin to be the US Attorney for the District of Columbia. There was ample reason for the hold on Martin’s nomination because of his defense of the January 6 insurrection, his public pandering to Elon Musk, offering to open criminal investigations based on recommendations from Musk, and his blatant conflicts of interest after taking office.

But it now turns out that Ed Martin has been a regular guest and purveyor of Kremlin talking points on Russian television programs. Per a letter from Senator Dick Durbin to Chuck Grassley, Ed Martin made “150 undisclosed appearances on Russian state media, [including] as recently as April of last year.” Only Donald Trump would nominate a US attorney who is practically a news anchor on Russian state media. That fact would not have been disclosed but for Senator Schiff’s hold. We need more of this type of hardball from Democratic Senators every day!

---

Judge James Boasberg’s memorandum re contempt

[Argh, argh, and triple argh! I am back after an hour break caused by Apple’s judgment that updating my computer was more important than me writing the newsletter. I lost—and rewrote—the “Center begins to hold” stories above. Quadruple argh! Fortunately, links and large chunks of text were still in my system clipboard, but I lost a lot of time nonetheless. As a result, I must get to the point in the next three stories so I can send the newsletter at a reasonable hour.]

Judge Boasberg’s memorandum opinion is here: Memorandum Opinion. Judge Boasberg dismantles the government's bad-faith tactics as it attempted to evade the judge’s order.

After explaining that he still has the power to punish contempt despite the reversal by the Supreme Court, Judge Boasberg identifies the stakes:

The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders — especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it. To permit such officials to freely “annul the judgments of the courts of the United States” would not just “destroy the rights acquired under those judgments”; it would make “a solemn mockery” of “the constitution itself.”

The above warning could apply to nearly every action of the Trump administration over the last 86 days. The entire tenure of the administration to this point can be described as an ongoing violation of multiple court orders.

However, Judge Boasberg also notes that the disobedience to his order was not only willful but “gleeful.” The crass, vengeful, petty men and women appointed by Trump are taking delight in their ability to thumb their noses at the courts (for now).

In a truly shameful act, Secretary of State Marco Rubio retweeted a mocking statement by El Salvadoran President Bukele that said, “Oopsie! Too late” when the US military transports refused to return to the US as ordered by Judge Boasberg.

The judge wrote,

Worse, boasts by Defendants intimated that they had defied the Court’s Order deliberately and gleefully. The Secretary of State, for instance, retweeted a post in which, above a news headline noting this Court’s Order to return the flights to the United States, the President of El Salvador wrote: “Oopsie . . . Too late 😂😂.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio is likely one of the targets of the criminal contempt hearing and will be asked during the proceeding,

“Did you order the planes to continue their flight to El Salvador with knowledge of the court’s order that they return to the US"?, and

“Were you mocking the court’s authority and flaunting your disobedience of the order when you retweeted President Bukele’s tweet? If not, what did you mean by retweeting the post?”

Rubio will do his best to avoid testifying by claiming “state secrets” or “executive privilege.” He may even get away with avoiding testimony. But his retweet of “Oopsie! Too late” will define his tenure as Secretary of State and prove that Trump was right to call him “Little Marco”—but not because of his stature. Trump clearly intuited that Rubio was a weak and cowardly man who lacked the courage, integrity, and grace to hold a position of honor in the US government, which is exactly why Trump nominated Rubio to be Secretary of State.

For additional discussion, see Josh Kovensky in Talking Points Memo, 5 Points On How Judge Boasberg Broke Down The Admin’s Alien Enemies Contempt.

---

The sloppy agreements between the Capitulating Firms and Trump

The “agreements” between the Capitulating Firms and Trump have been a mystery. Who were the parties to the agreements? What were the terms of the agreements? Are they enforceable?

Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo appears to have discovered the answers to the above questions—and they aren’t pretty. It appears that the “agreements” are little more than the press releases by the firms and Trump’s posts on Truth Social (descriptions that do not always match).

Worse, it appears that the agreements were negotiated by Boris Epshteyn—who does not represent the US government. Rather, Epshteyn is Trump's personal attorney.

So, if Epshteyn is Trump’s personal attorney, then Trump (rather than the government) is the counterparty to the agreement.

It appears that Trump's personal lawyer was convincing the firms to give up hundreds of millions of dollars in pro bono services to benefit Trump’s political standing in exchange for the cancellation of an official government action, i.e., the executive orders.

If true, such a corrupt exchange is why the five ethics experts suggest that the deals may violate federal anti-bribery statutes. See Josh Marshall, Talking Points Memo, For Big Law: Is That Your Final Answer?

At some point in the future, representatives of the law firms will be called to explain the nature, terms, and intent of the agreements. Those firms should already be preparing those answers with the assistance of high-powered criminal defense lawyers.

I am not suggesting that there was a criminal violation, but as cautious attorneys, the Capitulating Firms know that you don’t want to get close to that line. But that is where the amateurish, reckless deals placed once-proud and respected firms—too close to a line that could end careers and personal liberties.

---

Concluding Thoughts

The upwelling of institutional resistance on Wednesday is due to the grassroots protests by concerned citizens who have demonstrated the political will to resist Trump. Resistance by the people reinforces judicial and institutional decisions to push back against Trump’s vengeance-fueled reign of political terror.

The New Yorker recently published a story about how “dissidents” can resist authoritarian regimes. See The New Yorker, So You Want to Be a Dissident? The article describes the research of Erica Chenoweth, a professor at Harvard University. Per The New Yorker, Chenoweth analyzed 600 mass movements that resisted authoritarian governments:

Chenoweth found that when at least 3.5 per cent of the population participated in nonviolent opposition, movements were largely successful.

Chenoweth’s data also show that nonviolence is more effective than violence, and that movements do better when they build momentum over time—think a long-lasting general strike or wildcat walkouts, rather than a one-time action. . . . One by one, the sectors defect, and, eventually, the leader may weaken and their government may fall.

Erica Chenoweth’s research maps neatly onto the developments of Wednesday. “One by one, the sectors” turn on the authoritarian leader. Because of the strength and dedication of “we the people” over the last 86 days, we have emboldened and supported others to come to the defense of democracy.

We have a long way to go to reclaim democracy and reestablish the rule of law. But we are on the right path because the center is beginning to hold.

Daily Dose of Perspective

There is a thick cloud cover in Los Angeles on Wednesday evening, so here is a favorite image taken earlier this year from my backyard:

Pickering’s Triangle is a part of the Veil Nebula complex and is the 10,000-year-old remnant of a supernova explosion. The force of the supernova explosion still propels the remnants of the star through space at 1.5 million kilometers per hour.