MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:
Critics argue that one way the administration is depriving people of due process is by evading court orders or producing inadequate information. And in fact, a handful of judges have been blasting the administration for this. So we're going to talk for a few more minutes about this with Elliot Williams. He was a deputy assistant attorney general under the Obama administration. Good morning, Elliot.
ELLIOT WILLIAMS: Good morning, Michel.
MARTIN: U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis said in an eight-page order this week that the Trump administration had, quote, "sought refuge behind vague and unsubstantiated assertions of privilege, using them as a shield to obstruct discovery and evade compliance with this court's orders," unquote. Now, Elliot, judges are human, and they get annoyed, especially when they think lawyers are sloppy or unprepared. But help me understand how serious a scolding is this? Is she saying that the administration is doing this deliberately?
WILLIAMS: Oh, this is a quite serious scolding. Sure, Michel, judges are human, but you can read between the lines and see when a judge has simply lost patience with a litigant. It happens all the time. I think even more telling is the fact that she put the government at one point in the trial on daily reminders, making them come in every single day with a filing or a hearing to provide their status. She was simply not happy with the information she was getting from them and has made quite clear she thinks the government is, in fact, stonewalling in this case.
MARTIN: The case, obviously, that's been grabbing the most attention is that of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. That's the Maryland man who was deported in what's been described as an administrative error. But are there other cases where the judges are accusing the administration of deliberately delaying or stonewalling court orders?
WILLIAMS: Well, absolutely. And again, there is some subjectivity here, and the coin of the realm is good faith. And that's the legal language. Does the judge feel, or do the judges feel that both parties are acting in good faith in their attempts to comply with the law? Just this week, another judge in the district of Maryland found that another individual who had been removed to Maryland - had been removed from the country to El Salvador, that the government was playing fast and loose with discovery rules and not providing information or answering in a timely manner. This was a judge, and I hate saying this, but appointed by Donald Trump - I hate pointing out the president that appointed a judge because it shouldn't be relevant, but to an extent, it is - once again, criticizing the administration's compliance with court orders and speed and candor. And so it keeps happening in a number of these cases.
MARTIN: So there seems to be a pattern here. So is there a strategy driving this, a legal strategy?
WILLIAMS: There could be. Now, I want to be clear it's - attorneys are free and should zealously advocate on behalf of their clients and even sometimes test the bounds of what the law will allow them to do. That is advocacy, and that is an important aspect of making sure that all sides are heard appropriately in court. The problem is where discovery, the area in which parties give information to the other side, is used as a tool for depriving the other side of information that they're entitled to, and that seems to be happening here. So the government is taking advantage of a clear ambiguity in the law, not a bad one, but just the reality that they have a little bit of wiggle room, but really going quite far in playing fast and loose with what they're obligated to provide to their opponents.
MARTIN: So if the administration really is evading compliance, who decides that? And how could it be held accountable?
WILLIAMS: Certainly. It is the judge. It's absolutely the judge's determination. Now, the judge can hold a party in contempt if there are orders from the court that the party defies and if the judge finds that the parties defied those orders willingly or voluntarily. And - but it's really her or his decision to do so through - they find facts and they call the parties in, you know, and figure out should a civil or even criminal contempt order happen. Most of the time, when a judge threatens contempt, the parties all come to the table and provide the court at least something that it's looking for. But again, the judge needs to find that they are acting in good faith and at least trying to comply with what the judge is asking of them.
MARTIN: All right, finally, and I'm thinking we might have to return to this question, but a number of commentators, and I have to say, legal scholars of different ideological perspectives, who have been warning that we are approaching a constitutional showdown or crisis between the judiciary and the executive branches or that we are already in one. And do you have an opinion about that? Do you think that's true?
WILLIAMS: I have a very strong opinion about that. I do not believe we're in one right now, only because a crisis assumes that the existing order is not sufficient to solve the problem. There are still courts that can rule, and as of right now, the government is at least nominally complying with the courts. If there comes a day in which the government, the president, whoever else decides not to follow a court order, then, of course, we are in a constitutional crisis. As of today - what is it? - April 25, 2025, we're not there yet, but it could be coming.
MARTIN: That's Elliot Williams. He's a former deputy assistant attorney general at the Justice Department during the Obama administration. He's also a CNN analyst. Elliot Williams, thanks so much for joining us once again.
WILLIAMS: Great talking to you, Michel. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
