Legal Things

Although we try to stick to law and politics around here, it’s worth noting the practical implications of the chaos the Trump administration has created (especially for the “cheaper eggs” voters from 2024). ABC News reports that U.S. economic growth will slow to 1.6% this year from 2.8% last year “as President Donald Trump’s erratic trade wars disrupt global commerce, drive up costs and leave businesses and consumers paralyzed by uncertainty.”

That is where we are this week, as essential government agencies like FEMA are withdrawing needed and promised aid from Americans and masked ICE agents pull people, including American citizens, off the streets in the mad hunt for aliens here without legal status, in sufficient numbers to give Trump his talking points about “mass deportations.” It’s all about bucking up the ego of an aging guy who thinks he’s the only one who can fix it, when the rest of the world knows better.

The legal environment is no less chaotic. There are so many different legal stories right now that it’s hard to know where to look. But there is a throughline: Donald Trump continues to try to accumulate power that belongs to other branches of government and exercise as much of it as possible, without any restrictions. In other words, he is trying to undo the checks and balances the Founding Fathers put in place. It’s the unitary executive theory on steroids.

If you’re feeling overwhelmed by all the news, remember, that’s a feature, not a bug. He needs all of that noise to distract enough people for enough time because Trump is attempting to assume the role of dictator or autocrat, call it what you like. Call it “illiberal democracy” like Viktor Orbán does in Hungary. Recall that Putin still holds elections, although his serious opponents are dead or imprisoned. The El Salvadoran leader, Nayib Bukele, who is housing Trump’s prisoners in no-contact-with-the-outside-world detention told him he’d need to do away with the independent judiciary, what he called “corrupt” prosecutors and judges.

All of this and more is being attempted in our own country. Trump is testing the will of the American people, many of whom are already preparing for the June 14 “No Kings” protests. If you haven’t yet, take a moment to get your sign ready and gather your friends. Maybe plan a picnic that includes tacos.

Alina Habba, celebrating a birthday with Trump at Mar-a-Lago

Today, the expected lawsuit by Newark, New Jersey Mayor Ras Baraka dropped. Baraka alleges unlawful conduct by Trump’s U.S. Attorney and former lawyer Alina Habba, and Ricky Patel, the Special Agent in Charge of DHS’s Newark Division office of Homeland Security Investigations, acting in their private capacities (to avoid public official immunity). Baraka is suing for “false arrest and malicious prosecution” as a result of the incident at a New Jersey ICE detention facility where he accompanied members of Congress to investigate. New Jersey Congresswoman LaMonica McIver is facing charges that we discussed here.

Baraka was arrested and charged, and then the case was dismissed. Now, he’s alleging that:

• Habba authorized and/or directed his false arrest. Then she issued a defamatory statement about him on her personal social media account, which she and other officials later repeated and augmented on Fox News.

• Habba acted for political reasons, fulfilling her goal of “turning New Jersey red.”

• Habba and Patel conspired to have Baraka arrested on the basis of an affidavit they knew contained falsehoods, including the statement that “Ras Baraka did, knowing that he was not licensed or privileged to do so, enter and remain in a place as to which notice against trespass was given.”

• The truth is that an agent of GEO, the private prison company that runs the facility, invited Baraka onto the property. He subsequently left when Patel asked him to do so.

Baraka says he was at the facility on May 9 because Rep. McIver invited him to meet the three representatives for a press conference at Delaney Hall after the inspection. Members of Congress have an absolute legal right to inspect DHS facilities.

After he was invited inside the facility, Baraka says he waited patiently for 40 minutes, standing by the gate, until Patel told him to leave. It was at that point that the members of Congress noticed what was happening, walked over and asked if Baraka could join their inspection. Patel threatened to arrest Baraka, and Baraka responded, “I’m leaving now,” and left the property.

Baraka’s complaint alleges that Patel ordered DHS agents to “take him down,” even though he had already stated he was leaving and that approximately 20 DHS agents pursued him, his security team, and the members of Congress.

Much of the ensuing scuffle was captured on video, now released by DHS. Their agents handcuffed Baraka. They took him to a facility for processing, and he was photographed, fingerprinted, and interviewed for approximately 30 minutes. They held him in custody for over five hours on the charge of trespassing.

On May 19, 2025, the U.S. Attorney’s Office moved to dismiss the charges against Baraka. Magistrate Judge André Espinosa granted the motion, but not before admonishing Habba that her “role is not to secure convictions at all costs, nor to satisfy public clamor, nor to advance political agendas.” He cited a 1940 address by then-Attorney General Robert Jackson, where he told the assembled U.S. Attorneys that: “the citizen’s safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes.” He told her that her office “must operate with a higher standard than that [shown in this case].”

Baraka’s complaint includes three charges:

- Count One: That Habba and Patel, in their individual capacities, violated his Fourth Amendment rights, pursuant to a case called Bivens that allows individuals to recover from government officials, including law enforcement, who cause severe reputational harm, emotional distress, and other damages under certain circumstances.

- Count Two: Bivens claim under the Fourth Amendment for malicious prosecution against Habba and Patel in their individual capacities. The complaint alleges that the malicious prosecution caused Baraka severe reputational harm, emotional distress, and other damages.

- Count Three: state law defamation claim against Habba in her individual capacity

Baraka is asking the court to award him compensatory damages for pain, suffering and damage to his reputation; punitive damages, which punish above and beyond any compensation sought; and to recover his attorneys’ fees.

Baraka is arguing Habba and Patel acted in their personal capacities because immunity doctrines make for a difficult case against government officials acting in their official capacity and within the scope of their assigned duties. It’s a very difficult case. But Habba appears to have made both knowingly false statements that could support at least the defamation charge and the political flavor of the behavior gives the case at least some appeal. If nothing else, it’s an unwanted reminder that the brand-new U.S. Attorney in New Jersey has behaved in an unabashed and inappropriate political fashion, carrying water for her former client, now the president.

Habba and Patel will have an opportunity to respond to the complaint. So far, we have only seen Baraka’s side of the story. But it’s a far cry from going on Fox News and saying whatever sounds good to having to, as an officer of the court, make an allegation in pleadings. They will file a motion to dismiss, alleging privilege issues, and we’ll keep a close eye on them once they are filed.

Immigration policy and deportation cases continue to dominate the legal landscape. Trump seems to have made an assessment that the issue is a political win for him, but Americans across the country are out protesting, even driving back federal agents who are appearing masked in their communities and taking people off the streets. There are a number of pending cases, and the administration is on a collision path, if not already in a full collision, with the courts. It’s only a matter of time now until one of these cases comes to an ugly head and we find out whether the Article III branch of government, the courts, can successfully compel the Article II branch, the president, to follow its decisions.

This evening, in Columbus, Georgia, not exactly a bastion of liberalism, federal Magistrate Judge Amelia Helmick ordered the government to disclose the terms of the deal it made with El Salvador to house people it has sent to that country’s CECOT terrorist prison. The case involved a Venezuelan man, identified as E.D.Q.C., who was deported without due process, and specifically, an opportunity to raise a fear of torture claim if he was sent to El Salvador.

His case is unusual because he is one of the men who El Salvador apparently rejected from the flight that led to the case before Judge Boasberg in Washington, D.C. Judge Helmick found his removal was “likely unlawful” and has ordered discovery to give the plaintiff an opportunity to make out his case. She joins judges in three other cases, including that of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, in ordering the government to turn over this information, which so far, has not been forthcoming. It’s almost as though they have something to hide.

Note that far from being cowed by the threat environment, the federal judiciary seems to have stiffened its collective spine. Judges are not standing down from their obligation to consider the facts and follow the law, even if it puts them in the spotlight of MAGA forces that have publicly criticized them in a way that puts them and their families in danger. We owe these courageous public servants our thanks.

This is just the start of Baraka’s case against Habba and Patel. We’ll be studying it, as well as the deportation cases brought against the government. But in the confusion, don’t lose track of the theme. It’s about Trump’s effort to exert his will, not the people’s will, over events in this country. It’s the rule of Trump, not the rule of law, and we cannot let it be that way.

We’re in a moment when understanding the law isn’t optional—it’s essential. With 25 years at DOJ, including as a U.S. Attorney, I try to offer more than just hot takes. I dig into the actual legal documents, court decisions, and procedures that shape the headlines—and your rights.

If Civil Discourse helps you make sense of what’s happening and what’s at stake, I hope you’ll consider becoming a paid subscriber. Your support keeps this work going, especially at times like these when facts and context matter most.

We’re in this together,

Joyce