This week Ken and Josh discuss the Supreme Court's ruling in Learning Resources v. Trump, throwing out the massive country-specific tariffs the president purported to impose under the Nixon-era International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The opinion was messy: 6-3, but with the six-justice majority not agreeing on exactly why the tariffs were illegal.

Also this week, we look at a contempt order from Judge Laura Provenzino, putting a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney in contempt over the government’s failure to return identification documents to a non-citizen released from immigration custody on her orders. We discuss how an order like this matters, and how judges could further escalate in the face of widespread noncompliance by the federal government in these immigration cases.

Plus, we discuss a mistrial over a defense attorney’s t-shirt, Judge Paula Xinis’s rejection of yet another effort to detain Kilmar Abrego Garcia, Sen. Mark Kelly’s exclamation-mark-laden preliminary win against efforts to reduce his military rank and pension, and a Minnesota judge’s order directing the government to let ICE detainees talk with their lawyers. And we look at an all-timer performance from billionaire Les Wexner’s attorney, who whispered in his ear during a congressional deposition, threatening to kill him if he says any more answers longer than five words.

Upgrade your subscription to receive all of our episodes at serioustrouble.show.

This week Ken and Josh discuss a D.C. grand jury declining to indict Democrats in Congress, Don Lemon's new high-profile lawyer, and Trump's lawsuit against the IRS.

That’s for all subscribers this week. Paying subscribers get more conversation:

* A look at a highly consequential ruling from the Fifth Circuit, upholding the Trump Administration’s novel and very aggressive views on what aliens it may detain pending deportation. Most other courts have rejected these theories — including a majority of Trump’s own trial court appointees who have heard relevant cases — and there’s some skepticism that the Supreme Court will go along.

* The DOJ seized 2020 election ballots from Fulton County, with a fairly batshit search warrant that Ken is surprised got approval from a magistrate judge. Fulton wants its ballots back; we discuss whether they’ll get them and what might happen if Trump tries to get a warrant for ballots in an election where a count is ongoing rather than complete.

* We look at an alleged jewel thief who had the option of going to prison or Ecuador and unsurprisingly chose Ecuador — reflecting a serious failure of coordination between prosecutors and immigration authorities.

* And finally, is murder a crime of violence? The answer might surprise you.

Upgrade your subscription to receive all of our episodes at serioustrouble.show.

This week, Ken and Josh discuss Julie Le, the DOJ lawyer who vented in court that it "sucks" to represent this government. They cover what you should do if you’re a lawyer whose client is frustratingly non-compliant and taking actions that bother you; venting to the judge is the wrong course of action, but there are other options available.

That’s for all subscribers. Paying subscribers will also get our takes on other topics, including:

* Judge Kate Menendez’s ruling that denied Minnesota the preliminary injunction it sought against Operation Metro Surge. As we expected, the state’s novel theory that federal government’s actions are a 10th Amendment violation was a bridge too far, even for a judge who seemed to be looking for some avenue to rein in the operation.

* Judge Ana Reyes’s grant of a temporary restraining order on the grounds that the Trump Administration may have violated the Administrative Procedure Act by revoking Temporary Protected Status for hundreds of thousands of Haitians, and the limits of using the APA to litigate substantive questions about immigration policy.

* Bill and Hillary Clinton’s emerging deal to testify before the House Oversight Committee and avoid the otherwise-likely prospect of contempt of congress prosecutions.

* Former Minnesota Vikings offensive tackle Matt Kalil’s lawsuit against his ex-wife Haley, over her disclosure on a podcast that his incredibly large penis made their sex life impractical and was a major driver of their divorce. He says this was an invasion of privacy; she argues in a motion to dismiss that the story is about her sex life too and she’s free to tell whoever she wants. Is this the first case of a reverse Streisand Effect, where you litigate because you want to draw more attention to an allegation that’s been made about you? What even are the damages at issue here? Would Matt Kalil like to visit Fire Island this summer? Ken and I discuss.

Upgrade your subscription to receive all of our episodes at serioustrouble.show.