Roger Parloff unpacked a Minnesota federal judge’s civil contempt sanction against a U.S. attorney in an immigration habeas corpus case, illustrating a broader breakdown in compliance with judicial orders, mounting frustration from the judiciary, and limited accountability for senior officials under the Trump administration’s Operation Metro Surge.
Katherine Pompilio and Benjamin Wittes pulled quotes from 17 federal district court judges in over 70 immigration enforcement cases that exemplify the breakdown between the district courts and the executive branch due to the government’s lackluster compliance with court orders.
On Lawfare Daily, Wittes sat down with Eric Columbus, Anna Bower, Molly Roberts, Troy Edwards, Peter Harrell, and Parloff to discuss the Supreme Court’s ruling that overturned President Trump’s tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a Minnesota federal judge holding a government attorney in contempt, the Fulton County suit over the FBI’s seizure of 2020 presidential election ballots, and more.
Paul Stephan analyzed the Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources v. Trump, in which the Court held that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. Stephan contended that although the ruling struck down the use of emergency powers, it is not a complete loss for Trump’s tariffs, as alternative statutory authorities and less legally constrained powers remain available.
Harrell explained why the Trump administration’s reliance on Section 122 and Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to reimpose tariffs in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources is a more legally sound approach than its prior use of IEEPA, but still has its limits. Harrell cautioned that these statutory authorities are less flexible than Trump’s interpretation of IEEPA and that the courts remain sensitive to claims of overbroad executive power.
On Rational Security, Scott R. Anderson sat down with Tyler McBrien, Roberts, and Stephan to talk through the Supreme Court’s ruling on Trump’s IEEPA tariffs; the Mexican operation that killed one of the country’s most wanted cartel bosses, El Mencho; Trump’s State of the Union address; and more.
On Lawfare Live, Bower joined Wittes to unpack the Feb. 26 hearing in the criminal case against Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Material supporters and paid subscribers of Lawfare were able to watch this live on Substack. To access our next livestream and other exclusive content, subscribe to our Substack.
Also on Lawfare Live, Wittes sat down with Anderson, Bower, Parloff, Roberts, Columbus, and Edwards to discuss the legal challenges to the Trump administration’s cancellation of foreign aid, the Feb. 26 hearing in the Kilmar Abrego Garcia criminal case, a district judge’s finding of the DHS third-country removals to be unlawful, and more.
On Lawfare Daily, Lee Kovarsky joined Parloff to discuss patronage pardons, or pardons that a president issues to reward and possibly even induce criminality by their political supporters. Their conversation covered examples of such pardons, their differences from ordinary pardons, any potential limitations, and more.
Harrison Stark argued that “converse 1983” statutes advanced by states to authorize tort damages suits against federal officials who violate constitutional rights have stronger legal footing than critics may assume, founded within statutory text and jurisprudential history.
Omowunmi Odeja and Olivia Parker summarized Trump’s key national security and foreign policy statements from his 2026 State of the Union address, including border security and immigration, oil diplomacy with Venezuela, the possibility of a strike on Iran, the U.S.’s relationship with NATO, the reinstatement of tariffs, and more.
Wittes reflected on the lackluster responses from European countries and the U.S. to Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine over the past four years.
On Lawfare Daily, Ariane Tabatabai and Eric Brewer joined Wittes to discuss the possibility of a U.S. strike on Iran in the near future, what such an attack would look like, the reasons why the U.S. may strike, and more.
Also on Lawfare Daily, Stuart Casey-Maslen joined Loren Voss to discuss Geneva Academy’s international humanitarian law (IHL) report, the degradation of IHL over the past 20 years of global armed conflicts, the role of new technology, the future of threats to IHL compliance, the possibility of new humanitarian treaty rules, and more.
Mark Nevitt and Anissa Patel explained how Trump’s withdrawal from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change exposes a constitutional gray zone over treaty exit and reentry in which it is unclear whether Congress or the president has the final say. Nevitt and Patel analyzed precedent to discern where the power to terminate treaties lies in practice and what it means for American credibility in global climate cooperation.
In the latest edition of Lawfare’s Foreign Policy Essay series, Tricia Bacon and Elizabeth Grimm assessed how the global jihadist movement has been weakened by the lack of a unifying leader, which it previously had. Bacon and Grimm contended that this absence has increased division within the movement and made it less dangerous to the U.S.
On Lawfare Daily, Jason Burke joined Michael Feinberg to discuss Burke’s new book on European and Middle Eastern terrorist organizations in the 1970s, how governments responded to their attacks, how violence from the ‘70s still influences popular culture today, and more.
Feinberg criticized Sen. Chuck Grassley’s (R-Iowa) account of the FBI’s ARCTIC FROST investigation into the 2020 presidential race false electors scheme, arguing that misleading allegations of partisan bias and conspiracy distort routine bureaucratic processes and omit key evidence from the narrative. Feinberg cautioned that this paranoia in oversight damages the integrity of federal law enforcement.
Paul M. Barrett reviewed Emily Baker-White’s new book, “Every Screen on the Planet: The War Over TikTok,” which offers an account of TikTok’s rise and abuse of user data. Barrett explained that, while it documents censorship, data access, and corporate deception in its narrative, the book downplays their significance and shows unwarranted dismissal for the dangers of TikTok’s powerful algorithm.
Soham Mehta argued that Congress should adopt a federal age assurance framework that centers verification at the app-store level rather than pushing obligations onto individual platforms.
Alan Z. Rozenshtein broke down the ongoing Anthropic-Defense Department negotiations on the military’s use of artificial intelligence (AI). Rozenshtein argued that the complex legal questions raised by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s recent threat to invoke the Defense Production Act exemplifies why these policy and governance limits are better left for Congress.
On Scaling Laws, Kevin Frazier and Rozenshtein broke down the newest ultimatum, due Feb. 27 at 5:01 pm, from the Defense Department to Anthropic to permit its unrestricted use of Claude AI.
In the latest edition of the Seriously Risky Business cybersecurity newsletter, Tom Uren unpacked the feud between the Pentagon and Anthropic on military AI use restrictions, potential complications in the U.S.’s strategy against Volt Typhoon, and more.
Janet Egan and Michelle Nie explained that recent cyberattacks using AI should be taken as a warning that the U.S. lacks the tools to properly detect and understand AI-driven threats. Egan and Nie proposed the creation of an AI Security Review Board to conduct independent investigations into AI-related cyber incidents to strengthen information sharing and protect American security.
On Scaling Laws, Rozenshtein sat down with Cullen O’Keefe and Frazier to discuss their paper on using AI systems to automate regulatory compliance tasks as a way to balance innovation in AI policy with safety concerns. The trio discussed where the burden of compliance costs lies, what tasks AI can automate, objections to automated compliance, and more.
And that was the week that was.
