A Bad Hair Day

I had one. I did the show anyway.

I had a bad hair day today. Sometimes it happens. And when it happens, you face a choice. You can put on a hat. You can get all self-conscious. Or you can turn on the camera and do the show anyway and wear it on your sleeve—to mix a metaphor.

Today on #DogShirtTV, the horrors are never-ending, but we stay silly.

The estimable Holly Berkley Fletcher and I attempted improv, discussed burying gold, contemplated conversion to Bahai Faith, reveled in my bad hair day, and otherwise talked nonsense:

---

Not The Situation

I didn’t write a “The Situation” column today. I wrote a long analytical article on the Supreme Court’s decision in the J.G.G. case with the estimables Quinta Jurecic and Natalie Orpett. Entitled, “Mixed Signals on Alleged Alien Enemies,” it opens:

The Supreme Court’s decision Monday in Trump v. J.G.G. has sent a strange set of mixed messages to the Trump administration concerning its invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to ship hundreds of Venezuelan migrants to a prison in El Salvador.

On the one hand, the justices unanimously affirmed that people slated for deportation under this initiative are entitled to receive judicial review and, hence, to receive reasonable notice of their designations to facilitate their ability to contest the planned actions against them.

On the other hand, it remains to be seen how robust the process the court sketched out will prove to be for those not already deported. And the move probably leaves those who have already been shipped to El Salvador entirely without remedy.

What’s more, the Court seems to turn a blind eye to the administration’s apparent violation of a district court order three weeks ago to turn around planes that were flying these people out of the country—meaning that the Court may be leaving hundreds of Venezuelans in a Salvadoran prison and the Trump administration unaccountable for putting them there in an action of dubious legality.

---

Today On Lawfare

Compiled by the estimable Caroline Cornett

Can Congress Reverse Trump's Tariffs?

Molly E. Reynolds and Scott R. Anderson break down the expedited procedures in the National Emergencies Act (NEA), by which Congress can rescind tariffs President Donald Trump imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Reynolds and Anderson highlight several challenges Congress would encounter, including a likely presidential veto and discord within the House Republican caucus:

As originally enacted, the NEA terminated a national emergency upon passage of a concurrent resolution directing as much, and provided expedited procedures for considering and voting upon any concurrent resolution proposed for that purpose. Since concurrent resolutions only require passage by both chambers—not signature by the president—this effectively gave Congress a veto-proof means of rescinding national emergencies. But in the 1983 matter of Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, the Supreme Court invalidated a similarly structured mechanism in a different statute on the logic that it created an unconstitutional “legislative veto.” Congress appears to have been convinced that the same logic applied to the NEA’s expedited procedures, as it amended them in 1985 to instead apply to joint resolutions that have the force of law and thus require presentment to (and are subject to potential veto by) the president before becoming law.

Congress Must Protect the Role of JAGs in the Military

Dan Maurer explains why Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth's intended reform of the Judge Advocate General's (JAG) corps threatens to undermine the critical role JAGs play in ensuring adherence to the law of armed conflict (LOAC) principles and formulating the rules of engagement (ROE). Maurer suggests that Congress protect JAGs’ independence by mandating a JAG’s inclusion in a unit commander’s special staff and requiring regular updates to the standing ROE:

While it is too soon to know for certain what specific steps Parlatore and Hegseth will take, nearly anything they likely envision will marginalize the necessary and appropriate role of the JAGs at the tactical level; elevate “permissiveness” as a guiding principle within the rules of engagement; erode respect for the role that the law plays in regulating the use of armed force; and increase the risk that American service members will commit acts that violate international law—acts that will be less transparent to the American and global public and will go unpunished. All of these are true calamities because they undermine the credibility and reputation that the American military has built over generations—not just for its technical overmatch, but for how it fights with honor and respect for the law.

Podcasts

On Lawfare Daily, Anna Hickey sits down with Erin Sikorsky to talk about the omission of climate change from the Annual Threat Assessment, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s testimony in front of Congress, and the national security risks of climate change.

Videos

On April 11 at 4 p.m. ET, I will speak to Anna Bower, Quinta Jurecic, Roger Parloff, James Pearce, and Bob Bauer about the status of the civil litigation against Trump’s executive actions, including including the Supreme Court’s rulings in the Alien Enemies Act case and in the firing of probationary employees case:

---

Today’s #BeastOfTheDay is a frozen duck, unfrozen:

buffylex

A post shared by @buffylex

In honor of today’s Beast, eat a bowl of live minnows—and then freeze yourself in a block of ice and see what happens to you.